087 822 1639
Skip to content 087 822 1639
This article explores judgment and unpacks the key legal implications for couples, legal practitioners, and financial advisors.
When entering into a marriage Out of Community of Property with Accrual, many South Africans rely on an Ante Nuptial Contract (ANC) to protect their assets.
A crucial part of this Agreement is the declaration of the commencement value of each spouse’s estate. But what happens if the commencement value is omitted? Does a declared value always hold legal weight?
These questions lie at the heart of recent judicial interpretations of section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 (MPA). A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal has provided much-needed clarity.
Section 6 of the MPA regulates the proof of the value of a spouse’s estate at the commencement of the marriage, which is vital for calculating the accrual during divorce or death.
Accrual refers to the growth in value of each spouse’s estate during the marriage. In a marriage out of community of property with the accrual system, each spouse keeps what they owned before the marriage, but at the end of the marriage (through divorce or death), the spouse whose estate grew more shares half of the difference in growth with the other spouse.
Here are two main tools for determining this growth according to the MPA:
Section 6(3) states that an ANC or statement serves as prima facie proof of the commencement value, but the core legal debate has been: does this apply even when a value has been declared in the ANC? Or is a declared value conclusive, not just prima facie evidence?
Historically, Courts have diverged in interpreting whether a value declared in an ANC should be treated as conclusive proof of a spouse’s estate value at marriage or merely as prima facie evidence.
The distinction matters — if it’s prima facie, it can be challenged with evidence to the contrary; if conclusive, it’s binding unless challenged on specific legal grounds like fraud or misrepresentation.
Two key earlier cases such as Thomas v Thomas [1999] 3 All SA 192 (NC) and TN v NN and Others 2018 (4) SA 316 (WCC) it was held that both an ANC and a statement should be treated as prima facie proof, allowing for rebuttal.
These decisions left open the possibility that a declared value in a contract could be disputed, even when both parties agreed to it.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has now delivered a comprehensive judgment rejecting the interpretations in above-mentioned cases. Instead, the Court found:
Where the commencement value is declared in the ANC, that value serves as conclusive proof of the spouse’s estate at marriage.
Let’s take a look at the case of Manelis v Manelis 2025 JDR 2012 (SCA):
The parties in this matter are a married couple who entered into an Ante Nuptial Contract prior to their marriage, choosing to marry out of community of property with the accrual system applying. Meaning they agreed to keep their estates separate but to share any increase in value of their estates during the marriage.
At the start of the marriage, both spouses declared the commencement values of their respective estates in the Ante Nuptial Contract. In their Ante Nuptial Contract, the Applicant (Plaintiff in the Divorce action) declared the net value of her estate at the commencement of the marriage as nil and the Respondent (Defendant in the Divorce action) declared his as R 68.7 million.
The husband’s estate was declared to be worth approximately R 68.7 million, a figure later adjusted for inflation to about R129 million at the time of the marriage’s dissolution.
The marriage eventually ended, and on 24 March 2022, the divorce was finalised in the High Court of Johannesburg. As part of the order, the Court addressed matters concerning the parties’ minor son — including primary residence, parental rights and responsibilities, and maintenance.
In addition, the Respondent (the husband) was ordered to pay rehabilitative maintenance to the Applicant (the wife). Prior to the divorce, the parties had agreed on the CPI-adjusted commencement value of the husband’s estate as R129 million.
Following the dissolution, the wife brought an application for leave to appeal the valuation and claimed there had been accrual—that the husband’s estate had grown during the marriage. However, expert valuation submitted by the wife’s side calculated the estate value at dissolution as approximately R117.2 million, which was lower than the commencement value, indicating no accrual.
The dispute over these valuations and their legal implications led to Court proceedings, where the High Court ruled in favour of the husband, holding that the commencement value declared in the Ante Nuptial Contract served as conclusive proof of the value of his estate at the start of the marriage.
The wife appealed this decision, but the Appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Court upheld the finding that the Ante Nuptial Contract, where commencement values are declared, binds the parties unless attacked on recognised legal grounds like fraud or misrepresentation.
The case thus firmly established that where commencement values are declared in an Ante Nuptial Contract, they serve as binding proof, and the accrual calculation must be based on those values.
Section 6(3) applies only where no commencement value was declared in the ANC or where a separate statement was made under section 6(1).
If a value is declared in the ANC, it is binding unless challenged on common law grounds (e.g. fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence).
The Court rejected the idea that the words “contemplated in subsection (1)” in s 6(3) were inserted in error. These words are meaningful and restrict s 6(3)’s application to ANCs where no value was declared, and to statements made thereafter.
Section 6(4)(b) creates a deemed value of nil only when no value is declared and no contrary evidence is offered.
The purpose of declaring a commencement value in an ANC is to create certainty. The Court recognised that treating such a declaration as anything less than conclusive would undermine the contractual agreement between spouses.
If one spouse were later allowed to challenge the declared value, it would invite opportunistic litigation. The SCA’s interpretation strengthens the protective function of ANCs.
The judgment reinforces the sanctity of contract. Unless an ANC is challenged on recognised legal grounds (such as fraud or mistake), its terms must stand. This is a core common law principle that the legislature is presumed not to override unless clearly stated.
The SCA judgment draws a crucial distinction between two ways of proving a spouse’s estate value:
A statement is a unilateral declaration and does not require the agreement of the other party. In contrast, the ANC is a contractual agreement, and any declared value becomes part of the enforceable terms.
Couples getting married with significant assets should declare their estate’s value in the ANC if they want it to be binding, should they leave the value blank, it could be deemed as a value of nil.
In this matter, the Court carefully considered the issue of legal costs following the dismissal of the appeal and found no reason for costs not to follow the result. Both parties employed two counsels, which was deemed a reasonable and prudent decision given the complex factual and legal issues involved in the appeal.
The Court ruled that the Applicant (the wife) must bear the costs of the Appeal. This included not only the standard legal costs but also the additional costs associated with employing two counsel where this was done.
Furthermore, the Applicant was ordered to pay the costs related to the Application for leave to appeal, as well as the costs for condonation for the late filing of the Appeal Record. The reason hereof was because the Applicant accordingly did not discharge the onus of proving an accrual and her appeal must therefore fail.
In essence, because the wife’s Appeal was unsuccessful and she failed to discharge the onus of proving an accrual, she was held responsible for all costs incurred by both parties during the appeal process.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has now firmly settled the legal position: a declared value in an Ante Nuptial Contract is binding, and not merely prima facie proof. This judgment brings welcome clarity to an area of law that previously may have caused confusion across Courts.
To avoid legal and financial complications later, couples should take great care when drafting and signing their Ante Nuptial Contracts — and seek expert legal advice to ensure that declared values reflect their intentions and are legally secure.
Copyright © 2026 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy
BannerText_Seraphinite Accelerator
