087 822 1639
Skip to content 087 822 1639
If you are South African and now live in the United Kingdom, Australia, the UAE, the United States, countries across Europe, or elsewhere, you may still be able to get divorced in South Africa if your marriage has broken down.
You may also need South African-law advice even where your divorce is proceeding in the country where you now live.
This guide explains, in general terms, when a South African court may grant your divorce, whether that divorce is likely to be recognised where you live, and how South African matrimonial property and pension rules may affect you.
The detail of recognition, service and court procedure varies by country. Where we have prepared country-specific guidance, links appear later in this article.
Possibly. A South African court must have jurisdiction. This means either spouse is domiciled within that court’s area, or either spouse is currently ordinarily resident there and has been ordinarily resident in South Africa for at least the immediately preceding year.
South African citizenship, marriage in South Africa, or ownership of South African property is not enough on its own.
Under section 2(1) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979, as amended by the Domicile Act 3 of 1992, a South African court has jurisdiction in one of two situations. At the date proceedings are instituted, either spouse must be:
Only one spouse needs to satisfy one of these routes. This means a South African divorce can often still be available even where one spouse has been living abroad for years. It depends on whether the other spouse, or the applicant themselves, meets the domicile or residence test.
The second route will not usually assist someone who is presently living permanently abroad. It requires actual, current South African residence for the year before the case starts, not historic residence.
None of the following, on their own, gives a South African court jurisdiction over your divorce:
Jurisdiction depends on domicile or ordinary residence, assessed on the actual facts.
A domicile of choice is acquired when someone is lawfully present in a country and intends to settle there indefinitely. A domicile is not lost until a new one is acquired.
This means it is genuinely possible for a South African who has lived abroad for a long time to have retained their South African domicile. This depends on the evidence about their permanent home and intentions, not simply on the number of years abroad.
Two South African cases illustrate how this plays out in practice.
In V v V (5881/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 324, both spouses had been living in Dubai for around eight or nine years. The Gauteng Division found that the South African court still had jurisdiction. The evidence did not establish that the South African domicile had been abandoned and replaced by a permanent Dubai domicile. The parties had continued to contemplate returning to South Africa.
V v V does not mean South Africans abroad automatically remain domiciled in South Africa. It means the question turns on the specific evidence of intention, and years of residence abroad do not, by themselves, settle it.
In Grindal v Grindal 1997 (4) SA 137 (C), a South African woman had acquired an Australian domicile after marrying her Australian-domiciled husband. When the marriage broke down while she was temporarily in England, she intended to return to Cape Town and tried to institute divorce proceedings there. The court held that her South African domicile had not automatically revived simply because she intended to return. She was still outside South Africa and had not yet become lawfully present there with the intention of settling permanently. Her application was premature.
Read together, these cases show that a South African domicile can survive substantial time abroad. But it cannot simply be asserted, or automatically revived, once another domicile has genuinely been acquired.
Where both spouses have become permanently settled and domiciled in the country where they now live, and neither satisfies the one-year South African ordinary-residence route, a South African divorce will generally not be available.
In that situation, the divorce will usually need to proceed in the country where you live. South African-law advice may still be relevant to your assets, pensions, or matrimonial property regime.
This depends on the recognition rules of the country where you live, which vary.
As an example, in England and Wales, an overseas divorce obtained through court proceedings is recognised under section 46(1) of the Family Law Act 1986. This applies where it is effective under the law of the country in which it was obtained.
It must also be shown that, at the relevant date, either spouse was habitually resident, domiciled in, or a national of that country.
For a South African divorce, the relevant date is when the South African proceedings commenced, not when the final order is granted.
In England and Wales, South African nationality is expressly one of the statutory connecting factors. Other countries apply their own recognition rules, which need to be checked separately for the country where you live.
Recognition rules do, however, differ from country to country. In England and Wales, recognition may nevertheless be refused on limited statutory grounds. These include inadequate notice, insufficient opportunity to participate, incompatibility with an earlier recognised decision, or where recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy. Recognition that you are legally divorced is also not the same as recognition or enforcement of financial, maintenance, or children’s orders made in South Africa.
Separate advice is often needed on enforcing those orders, or on bringing fresh proceedings, in the country where you live.
Section 13 of the Divorce Act recognises a foreign divorce, annulment or judicial separation order in South Africa. On the date the foreign order was granted, either spouse must have been domiciled in that country, ordinarily resident there, or a national of that country.
Where South African law governs the proprietary consequences of your marriage, the matrimonial property regime materially affects how assets are treated. This is not automatic. Determining which country’s law governs the proprietary consequences of an international marriage is a separate legal enquiry.
Following the decision in N.P., the enquiry begins with any valid and substantially connected choice of law. It then considers the spouses’ common domicile, common habitual residence, common nationality, and closest joint connection at the time of marriage.
In community of property. The spouses have a joint estate, subject to statutory exceptions and consent requirements for certain transactions. On divorce, the starting point is division of the joint estate, though forfeiture or other relief can affect the outcome.
Out of community of property, without accrual. The spouses keep separate estates. Neither automatically shares in the growth of the other’s estate.
Out of community of property, with accrual. The spouses keep separate estates during the marriage. On divorce, the spouse with the smaller accrual ordinarily has a claim equal to half the difference between the two accruals. This is subject to commencement values, exclusions, and other adjustments in the antenuptial contract.
Section 7(3) of the Divorce Act may permit a redistribution order in qualifying marriages out of community of property without accrual. The remedy is not based merely on a general perception of unfairness. The claimant must establish a direct or indirect contribution to the maintenance or increase of the other spouse’s estate. The court must then determine whether redistribution is just and equitable. This remedy used to be limited to marriages entered into before 1 November 1984.
In EB v ER; KG v Minister of Home Affairs [2023] ZACC 32, the Constitutional Court held that this exclusion, and a related exclusion for marriages ending in death, were unconstitutional. The Court put interim remedies in place. This means the date a no-accrual marriage was entered into is no longer, by itself, an absolute bar to a redistribution claim.
Parliament is considering permanent legislation on this issue through the General (Family) Laws Amendment Bill. Until that legislation is enacted, the Constitutional Court’s interim orders and the developing case law that follows them remain the relevant legal position.
This remedy generally applies where South African law governs the proprietary consequences of the marriage. Where foreign law governs instead, section 7(3) does not automatically apply as though the marriage were governed by South African law.
Under section 7(9) of the Divorce Act, the South African court has the same power to order a transfer of assets that a competent court of the applicable foreign state would have had. Expert evidence on the content of that foreign law may therefore be necessary. This is another reason it matters to establish which country’s law actually applies to your marriage, before assuming any particular outcome.
On 23 June 2026, the Western Cape High Court, in N.P. v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, declared the old common-law rule unconstitutional and invalid. That rule fixed a marriage’s matrimonial property regime by the husband’s domicile at the time of marriage.
In its place, the court set out a gender-neutral hierarchy for determining which country’s law governs the proprietary consequences of an international marriage, drawing on models used in the Hague Convention and European Union instruments:
This is a separate legal question from whether a South African court has jurisdiction to grant your divorce. That is governed by the domicile and residence tests described earlier in this guide.
A South African court can have jurisdiction to grant the divorce even where the law of a different country governs the proprietary consequences of the marriage.
The judgment applies retrospectively to existing marriages, subject to specific protections. Where spouses chose a governing law in an antenuptial contract, they have two years from the date of the order to amend it if that choice would otherwise be affected. The development does not disturb transactions already completed under the old rule, and does not apply to marriages already dissolved by death or divorce before the order.
This is a significant and very recent decision from a single High Court division. The hierarchy itself is expressly ordered by the court, but the decision is new. How it will be applied and treated by other courts, including on appeal, remains to be seen. If your marriage has an international element, it is worth asking your South African lawyer whether this development affects your case, rather than relying on a summary of it.
Sections 7(7) and 7(8) of the Divorce Act treat a qualifying pension interest as part of the member spouse’s assets. They allow the divorce court to assign a portion of it to the non-member spouse.
This definition is specific and is measured at the date of divorce. It does not automatically cover every pension benefit or every marital regime.
The 2007 amendments to section 37D of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 established the “clean-break” principle. Amendments effective from 13 September 2007, and further amendments effective 1 November 2008, allow the non-member spouse’s assigned share to be paid or transferred once the divorce order is made. They no longer need to wait until the member spouse eventually retires or resigns.
Two cautions are worth knowing. If the pension benefit already accrued before the divorce, for example because the member had already resigned, the statutory pension interest mechanism may no longer apply. Public sector and other statutory funds can also require separate analysis under their own governing legislation.
If your divorce is proceeding outside South Africa, it is worth knowing that this is not the same mechanism as your new country’s approach to dividing pensions.
In England and Wales, for example, a pension sharing order generally awards a percentage of the cash-equivalent value of pension rights. This creates a separate pension credit for the former spouse, with its own valuation date, tax treatment, and implementation process.
Both systems can achieve a post-divorce separation of pension rights, but they are not equivalent. A benefit correctly identified and valued under one system will not automatically translate to the other.
Where the respondent is abroad, leave to serve the initiating documents outside South Africa is ordinarily required under the rules of the court in which the divorce is instituted. In the High Court, this is governed by Uniform Rule 5. In the Regional Court, the corresponding process is governed by Magistrates’ Court Rule 10.
Both systems require the application to identify the claim, the basis for the South African court’s jurisdiction, and the proposed method of service. If personal service is not proposed, it must also identify the last known whereabouts and the enquiries made.
Depending on the country, service may be arranged through a local legal practitioner authorised to serve court documents there. The court may instead approve another method, including electronic substituted service where justified.
You do not usually need to arrange this yourself. Your South African attorneys obtain the necessary order, arrange service, and file the required proof.
There is no single answer that applies everywhere in South Africa. Some courts and divisions permit certain unopposed divorces to proceed on affidavit or through remote evidence, subject to their current practice directives and the presiding judicial officer’s discretion.
In other cases, or in other divisions, oral evidence or a physical appearance may still be required. This is especially likely if the matter is defended or the facts are disputed.
An uncontested South African divorce can often be completed without travelling to South Africa. This cannot be guaranteed, and depends on the specific court, the nature of the case, and the presiding judge’s directions. You should expect that you may still need to sign affidavits, provide authenticated documents, and give evidence if the court directs it.
There are two distinct ways MVA typically assists South Africans living abroad.
Where South African jurisdiction exists, we can assess your domicile and residence position, and institute or defend the divorce. We can also arrange service on a spouse who lives abroad, and advise on your matrimonial property regime, pension interests, and other South African assets.
Where your divorce is proceeding in the country where you live, we can advise you and your locally authorised lawyer. This covers the South African-law aspects of your case.
This can include your matrimonial property regime, an antenuptial contract, South African assets, companies, trusts, property, and pension interests. It also covers the practical steps needed to implement an order affecting assets in South Africa.
Your local lawyer remains responsible for advice and representation concerning the law and proceedings of the country where you live.
Recognition rules, service arrangements, and practical considerations differ by country. We are building out dedicated, country-specific guidance, starting with:
Further country guides are planned, including Australia, New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Germany. If your country is not yet covered, the general principles in this guide still apply, and we can advise you directly on your specific situation.
I’m South African but haven’t lived there in years. Can I still divorce there?
Possibly, if you or your spouse are domiciled in South Africa or have been ordinarily resident there for at least a year immediately before proceedings begin. This depends on the specific facts, not simply on your citizenship.
Both my spouse and I have settled permanently abroad. Can we still use a South African court?
This is unlikely if neither of you is domiciled in South Africa and neither has the required recent South African residence. Your divorce will generally need to proceed in the country where you live, though South African-law advice may still be relevant to your assets and pensions.
Will my South African divorce be recognised in my new country?
A South African divorce may be recognised where you live, but this depends on that country’s own rules. Local advice should confirm the position before you rely on the South African order.
Can MVA work alongside my lawyer in the country where I live?
Yes. We regularly advise clients and their locally authorised lawyers on the South African-law aspects of a case, while local counsel handles matters governed by local law.
What happens to my South African pension or property?
This depends on your matrimonial property regime, whether South African law governs your marriage, and the specific rules that apply to the asset in question. Early advice is usually more valuable than advice sought after proceedings have already started.
If any of this applies to you, the next step is usually a conversation, not a form. We can help you understand where you stand before you decide what to do next.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Every case depends on its own facts. You should seek advice from a suitably qualified lawyer, in South Africa and in the country where you live, before taking any action.
The law and procedure discussed in this article can change. This article was checked as at 1 August 2026.
Martin Vermaak Attorneys Inc. is a South African legal practice. We advise on South African law and conduct proceedings before South African courts.
Where your divorce is proceeding in another country, we can advise you and your locally authorised lawyer on the South African-law aspects of your case. Your local lawyer remains responsible for advice and representation concerning the domestic law and court proceedings of that jurisdiction.
For a broader overview of competing jurisdictions and international divorce strategy, see our guide to navigating the complexities of international divorce.
Author:
Martin Vermaak, B.Proc, LLB
South African Attorney | Director, Martin Vermaak Attorneys Inc. | Over 20 years’ experience in divorce and family law
Divorce Act 70 of 1979, section 2
Statutory basis for South African divorce jurisdiction, as amended by the Domicile Act 3 of 1992. View source
Divorce Act 70 of 1979, section 13
Recognition of foreign divorce, annulment and judicial separation orders in South Africa. View source
Divorce Act 70 of 1979, sections 7(3), 7(7) and 7(8)
Redistribution of assets and treatment of pension interests on divorce. View source
Domicile Act 3 of 1992
Statutory rules governing the acquisition and retention of a domicile. View source
Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984
Introduced the accrual system and regulates the in-community-of-property regime. View source
V v V (5881/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 324
Gauteng Division authority on retention of South African domicile despite long residence abroad. View source
Grindal v Grindal 1997 (4) SA 137 (C)
Cape Provincial Division authority on the revival of a South African domicile. A direct case report was not available to link; search SAFLII’s LawCite by this citation. View source
EB (born S) v ER (born B) and Others; KG v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT 364/21; CCT 158/22) [2023] ZACC 32
Constitutional Court judgment declaring the section 7(3) exclusions unconstitutional and putting interim redistribution remedies in place. View source
General (Family) Laws Amendment Bill [B 20—2025]
Proposed permanent legislation implementing the Constitutional Court’s redistribution ruling. Before Parliament as at 1 August 2026; not yet enacted. View source
N.P. v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (2468/2024) [2026] ZAWCHC 343
Western Cape High Court judgment on the applicable law governing the proprietary consequences of marriage. Recent; not yet a settled national position. View source
Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956, section 37D
The clean-break principle for pension interests assigned on divorce. View source
Eskom Pension and Provident Fund v Krugel and Another [2011] ZASCA 96
Supreme Court of Appeal authority on the limits of the pension interest mechanism where a benefit has already accrued. View source
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 5
Procedure for obtaining leave to serve divorce proceedings on a respondent outside South Africa, in the High Court. View source
Magistrates’ Courts Rules, Rule 10
The corresponding procedure for leave to serve outside South Africa, in the Regional Court. View source
Family Law Act 1986 (England and Wales), sections 46 and 51
Illustrative example of how one country recognises an overseas divorce, and the limited grounds on which recognition may be refused; recognition rules vary by country. View source
Copyright © 2026 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy
BannerText_Seraphinite Accelerator