...
Martin Vermaak Attorney Logo
New Appointments

087 822 1639

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: EB v ER

HOME / Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: EB v ER

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: EB v ER

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: EB v ER

HOME / Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: EB v ER



Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: EB v ER

Table of Contents

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa:

EB v ER 

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa is a discretionary court remedy that may be available where spouses are married out of community of property under an antenuptial contract excluding accrual.  

A redistribution claim is made under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act and asks the court to order a transfer of assets from one spouse to the other if, on the evidence, it is just and equitable.  
 
After the Constitutional Court’s decision in EB v ER; KG v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2023] ZACC 32, the old date-based cut-off is no longer applied in the same way, but redistribution is still not automatic and depends on what can be proved about contributions, fairness, and the overall circumstances.

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa key takeaways 

  1. Section 7(3) of the Divorce Act gives a court a discretion to order a transfer of assets in certain divorces where spouses were married out of community of property without accrual.
  2. EB v ER; KG v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2023] ZACC 32 is the binding authority that changed the old cut off date position and put an interim remedy in place while Parliament legislates.
  3. Antenuptial contracts are not invalidated by EB v ER, but a no accrual antenuptial contract is no longer an absolute bar to a redistribution claim in divorce proceedings.
  4. Redistribution is never automatic and the claimant must still prove the required contributions and persuade the court that the order is just and equitable.
  5. The safest way to approach these cases is to build an evidence plan early, because redistribution claims often turn on proof, valuation, and disclosure. 

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: what changed after EB v ER 

Before EB v ER, section 7(3)(a) was applied in a way that excluded many spouses married out of community of property without accrual after 1 November 1984. In EB v ER and KG, the Constitutional Court confirmed that this exclusion was unconstitutional and ordered interim relief while Parliament fixes the legislation. 

The practical effect is that, during the suspension period, spouses in later no accrual antenuptial contract marriages are not excluded from section 7(3) purely because of the date of marriage. Redistribution remains a discretionary remedy and the court must still decide what is just and equitable on the facts.

Where Greyling fits in now 

Greyling v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (40023/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 311 (11 May 2022); 2022 (5) SA 478 (GP); [2022] 3 All SA 58 (GP) was the earlier High Court decision that declared the date based exclusion unconstitutional and referred the order for confirmation.  

It remains an important part of the history, but EB v ER is now the binding authority and should be treated as the starting point for the current law.

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: who can bring a redistribution claim now? 

shutterstock 2434680813

A redistribution claim is most likely to be relevant where all the following are true. 

  1. The marriage was out of community of property under an antenuptial contract.
  2. The antenuptial contract excluded the accrual system.
  3. The marriage is ending in divorce.
  4. One spouse can show direct or indirect contributions to the maintenance or increase of the other spouse’s estate during the marriage, in a way that makes a redistribution order just and equitable. 

Marriages in community of property and marriages out of community with accrual are generally dealt with through different mechanisms and do not usually rely on section 7(3) in the same way.

What you must prove for a redistribution order

Section 7(3) gives the court a discretion, not a right to a fixed share. The required proof is shaped by section 7(4) to section 7(6) of the Divorce Act. 

  1. You must show direct or indirect contributions to the maintenance or increase of the other spouse’s estate.
  2. Contributions can include working in a family business, saving expenses, managing the household, raising children, and other forms of support that enabled wealth creation.
  3. You must show that a redistribution order would be just and equitable in the circumstances.
  4. The size and form of any transfer depends on evidence, valuations, and what is practically workable.

New cases applying the post EB position  

After EB v ER, High Courts have already dealt with the practical question of how redistribution claims are brought and amended in live divorce litigation. 

shutterstock 2209440351

1. RVB v JVB (A92/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 378 

  • RVB v JVB is a useful post EB v ER example because it shows how a redistribution of assets divorce South Africa claim can be introduced in divorce proceedings that were already underway. 
  • The parties were married out of community of property under an antenuptial contract without accrual, which is the typical setting where a section 7(3) redistribution claim becomes relevant after EB v ER. 
  • The dispute focused on whether pleadings could be amended to add a redistribution claim under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act in light of the Constitutional Court’s interim position. 
  • The court approached the matter as a procedural question about amendment, not as a final decision that redistribution should be granted. 
  • The judgment is a reminder that EB v ER does not give an automatic entitlement to assets, but it does affect whether a post 1984 no accrual marriage is excluded at the starting line. 
  • The court considered ordinary amendment principles, including whether the amendment was bona fide, whether it was timeously raised, and whether it would cause unfair prejudice. 
  • The practical message for redistribution of assets divorce South Africa is that attorneys should review older pleadings in antenuptial contract without accrual matters, because the case theory and relief sought may need updating after EB v ER. 
  • RVB also highlights why early disclosure planning matters, because once a redistribution claim is pleaded, asset schedules, valuations, and contribution evidence become central to the litigation strategy. 
  • The case helps explain to clients that redistribution is a discretionary remedy under section 7(3), and the amendment step only opens the door to the evidential enquiry that follows. 
  • For article purposes, RVB is best used to support the point that redistribution claims after EB v ER are being actively litigated in post 1984 ANC without accrual divorces, often through amendments rather than brand-new actions. 

2. M S v E S (3091/2021) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 96 

  • M S v E S is another post EB v ER case that deals directly with introducing a redistribution of assets divorce South Africa claim in ongoing divorce litigation. 
  • The background is again a marriage out of community of property under an antenuptial contract without accrual, where one spouse sought to pursue section 7(3) relief after the Constitutional Court’s interim remedy. 
  • The court dealt with an amendment application, which is important because many post 1984 no accrual marriages were historically pleaded on the assumption that redistribution was legally unavailable. 
  • The judgment illustrates that the court’s focus remains procedural fairness and proper case management, not a shortcut to a redistribution order. 
  • The court considered whether the proposed redistribution claim was formulated clearly enough to be triable and whether it could be met with a proper plea and evidence at trial. 
  • The case is helpful for keyword clarity because it shows that a redistribution claim after a no accrual antenuptial contract must still be aligned to section 7(3) and supported by the contribution framework in section 7(4). 
  • The decision also reinforces that timing matters, because late amendments can create prejudice and may be refused if they disrupt trial readiness or require a major re-run of preparation. 
  • For readers, M S v E S helps explain that EB v ER changed the legal landscape, but it did not remove the need to prove direct or indirect contributions to the other spouse’s estate in a way that makes redistribution just and equitable. 
  • For attorneys, it is a practical reminder to draft the redistribution relief precisely, identify the asset pool, and plan disclosure and valuation evidence early. 
  • For the article, M S v E S supports the point that courts are already applying the post EB v ER framework in real cases, but they are doing so through normal pleading rules and evidence-driven litigation. 

3. E L M v L M (9360/2022P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 127 

  • E L M v L M is valuable because it shows the post EB v ER position being treated as the operative framework in a divorce involving an antenuptial contract without accrual concluded after 1 November 1984. 
  • The case illustrates that the key question is no longer only whether a redistribution of assets divorce South Africa claim is competent, but whether the claimant can prove the section 7(3) and section 7(4) requirements on evidence. 
  • The court approached redistribution as a discretionary remedy and evaluated the factual basis for the transfer sought, rather than assuming any fixed formula or percentage. 
  • The judgment highlights that the claimant must set out and prove direct or indirect contributions to the maintenance or increase of the other spouse’s estate, which is the heart of a redistribution claim. 
  • In practice, this typically requires proper financial disclosure, credible valuations, and a coherent narrative of how the contributions enabled wealth creation or preserved the other spouse’s estate. 
  • The case is also a useful reality check that redistribution litigation is rarely isolated, because it often runs alongside other divorce issues like maintenance, housing arrangements, or disputes about business interests. 
  • For readers searching redistribution claim after no accrual ANC, E L M helps demonstrate that courts are applying the post EB v ER approach case by case, based on what can be proved and what is just and equitable. 
  • The judgment reinforces that EB v ER did not invalidate antenuptial contracts, but it changed the way the law treats a no accrual antenuptial contract as a potential barrier to redistribution in divorce proceedings. 
  • The practical takeaway is that the strongest redistribution cases are built around documents and objective proof, not general fairness arguments, because section 7(3) remains discretionary and evidence-driven. 
  • For the article, E L M is best used to support the message that post 1984 antenuptial contract without accrual spouses can pursue redistribution of assets divorce South Africa in principle, but outcomes depend on contributions, values, and the court’s equity assessment.

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: has Parliament changed the law yet? 

shutterstock 1951412032

Parliament has introduced the General (Family) Laws Amendment Bill (B20-2025), which proposes amendments to the Divorce Act and Matrimonial Property Act to give permanent effect to the Constitutional Court’s remedy.  
 
At the time of writing, the Bill has not yet been enacted, so the interim Constitutional Court position and developing case law remain central.

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: what not to do 

  1. Do not assume redistribution is guaranteed just because the marriage was out of community of property without accrual.
  2. Do not assume an antenuptial contract is invalid or unlawful because redistribution may now be available in principle. 
  3. Do not plead a redistribution claim without an evidence plan for contributions, asset values, and the practical mechanics of the transfer sought. 
  4. Do not leave the redistribution issue to the end of settlement talks, because it can change disclosure strategy and settlement ranges from the start.

Redistribution of assets divorce South Africa: calm expectations note 

  1. Redistribution remains discretionary and fact specific. 
  2. The court’s focus is fairness grounded in evidence, not punishment and not a standard formula. 
  3. Interim constitutional remedies can evolve as Parliament legislates and as more judgments clarify procedure and proof. 
  4. The best outcome usually comes from early legal strategy, full financial disclosure, and a realistic view of what can be proved. 

FAQ: redistribution of assets divorce South Africa

1. Can I claim redistribution if we signed an antenuptial contract without accrual after 1984?  

EB v ER changed the position in principle. A no accrual antenuptial contract is no longer an automatic bar to a section 7(3) redistribution claim during the interim period. 

A redistribution order is still discretionary. It depends on proof of contributions, the overall fairness of the proposed outcome, and the court’s view of what is just and equitable. 

2. Does EB v ER cancel antenuptial contracts? 

No. EB v ER did not declare antenuptial contracts unlawful or invalid. 

The change is that exclusion of accrual is no longer treated as a complete barrier to a redistribution claim in all cases, so the divorce consequences of a no accrual antenuptial contract can be more nuanced than before. 

3. What evidence matters most for a redistribution claim 

Proof of direct or indirect contributions is central. That can include work in a family business, childcare and household roles that enabled wealth creation, and financial support or saving of expenses. 

Clear evidence of asset values, growth during the marriage, and the practical transfer sought is usually decisive. 

4. Can I add a redistribution claim after pleadings have closed 

It may be possible, but timing and procedure matter. Courts have already dealt with amendment applications in the post EB environment, including RVB v JVB and M S v E S. 

The safest approach is to get advice early so the claim is pleaded properly and supported by a realistic evidence plan.

5. Has Parliament changed the law permanently yet

A Bill has been introduced to amend the Divorce Act and Matrimonial Property Act, but it is not yet in force. Until the permanent amendments commence, the interim Constitutional Court position and post EB case law remain central. 

If you are divorcing under an antenuptial contract without accrual and you want to know whether a redistribution claim is realistic on your facts, book a consultation with our family law attorneys. 

If you are divorcing under an antenuptial contract without accrual and you want to know whether a redistribution claim is realistic on your facts, book a consultation with our family law attorneys. 

Written by Martin Vermaak, Director, Martin Vermaak Attorneys Inc., Divorce and Family Attorney. 10 March 2026 

Authorities considered (legislation and case law)

  1. Divorce Act 70 of 1979, sections 7(3) to 7(6).
  2. Greyling v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (40023/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC
    311 (11 May 2022).
  3. EB v ER; KG v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT 364/21; CCT 158/22)
    [2023] ZACC 32.
  4. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v EB (born S) and Others;
    in re KG v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, extension order (CCT 364/21;
    CCT 158/22), published on SAFLII as CCT364.pdf.
  5. RVB v JVB (A92/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 378 (19 November 2024).
  6. M S v E S (3091/2021) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 96 (23 September 2025).
  7. E L M v L M (9360/2022P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 127 (5 December 2025).
  8. General (Family) Laws Amendment Bill (B20-2025), Parliament of South Africa,
    and the published Bill text on gov.za.
Submission Form

Read More

– Co-owned House Divorce South Africa: Who Gets What
– EB (Born S) V ER (Born B) N.O. V And Others V KG V Minister Of Home Affairs And Others
– Property Sales In Community Of Property Marriages
– Executor And Estate Administration Services In South Africa
– Co-parenting After Separation: Building A Healthy Dynamic

On Key

Latest Posts

Give Us A Call
Book a Consultation
Start a Live Chat

Copyright © 2026 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.

Terms of Use Privacy Policy