Understanding the Recent Supreme Court of Appeal Ruling on Antenuptial Contracts
On 9 May 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) delivered a landmark judgment in Manelis v Manelis (Case no 1235/22) [2025] ZASCA 55 (9 May 2025) that clarifies a contentious area of South African matrimonial property law. The case revolves around the interpretation of section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 (MPA) and specifically addresses whether parties are bound by commencement values declared in antenuptial contracts.
The judgment resolves conflicting high court decisions regarding whether a commencement value declared in an antenuptial contract serves as conclusive proof or merely prima facie proof of a spouse’s estate value at the beginning of marriage. This distinction is crucial for calculating accrual claims upon divorce.
The Manelis case involved spouses married out of community of property with accrual. In their antenuptial contract, the respondent declared his estate value at R68.7 million at commencement, while the applicant declared her value as nil. Upon divorce, the applicant challenged the accuracy of the respondent’s declared value, arguing it was overstated and that she was entitled to approximately R18 million (half of what she calculated as the true accrual).
The SCA, with Acting Judge of Appeal Bloem writing for a unanimous court, carefully analysed previous conflicting judgments including Olivier v Olivier 1998 (1) SA 550 (D & CLD), Thomas v Thomas [1999] 3 All SA 192 (NC), and TN v NN and Others 2018 (4) SA 316 (WCC). The court concluded that section 6(3) of the MPA refers specifically to antenuptial contracts where commencement values are not declared, or to statements made under section 6(1), not to contracts where values are explicitly declared.
The court distinguished between the legal effects of antenuptial contracts (where values are declared) and statements made under section 6(1). It held that antenuptial contracts with declared values serve as conclusive proof, binding the parties under common law contractual principles, while statements serve only as prima facie proof that can be rebutted with evidence.
This judgment emphasises the importance of certainty in matrimonial property agreements and upholds the common law principle that parties should be bound by their contractual terms absent misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, fraud, or where rectification is sought. The SCA found no legislative intention to alter these common law principles through the MPA.
For couples contemplating marriage with the accrual system, the Manelis judgment underscores the critical importance of ensuring accurate declarations of estate values in antenuptial contracts, as these values cannot later be disputed simply because they were incorrectly stated. The ruling provides clarity for legal practitioners advising clients on matrimonial property matters and will impact how accrual claims are approached in future divorce proceedings in South Africa.
The Question of Commencement Values: Prima Facie vs. Conclusive Proof
The Manelis judgment fundamentally resolves the legal dispute about whether declared commencement values in antenuptial contracts can be challenged during divorce proceedings. Prior to this ruling, South African courts had taken conflicting positions on this interpretation of section 6(3) of the MPA.
One line of high court decisions, including the Olivier case and Jones and Another v Beatty NO and Others 1998 (3) SA 1097 (TPD), held that parties are bound by the commencement values declared in antenuptial contracts. The opposing view, represented by cases such as Thomas and TN v NN, interpreted section 6(3) to mean that declared values in antenuptial contracts serve merely as prima facie proof that could be rebutted by evidence showing different actual values.
The SCA clarified that section 6 of the MPA makes a clear distinction between different legal instruments and their evidentiary weight. The court rejected the argument raised in previous cases that the words “contemplated in subsection (1)” were erroneously inserted in section 6(3), citing the interpretative principle established in Wellworths Bazaars Ltd v Chandler’s Ltd and Another 1947 (2) SA 37 (A) and more recently in GN v JN [2016] ZASCA 162 that every word in legislation must be given meaning.
The court identified an important distinction between objective commencement values and agreed commencement values. Where parties contractually agree on a specific value in their antenuptial contract, that agreement prevails regardless of the objective reality. This reinforces the sanctity of contract principles while recognising that statements under section 6(1) – being unilateral declarations rather than bilateral agreements – deserve less evidentiary weight.
In practical terms, this means that a spouse cannot later claim during divorce proceedings that the commencement value declared in an antenuptial contract was incorrect, unless they can establish grounds to challenge the contract itself under common law principles such as misrepresentation, fraud, duress or grounds for rectification.
The Manelis judgment also addressed how courts should approach the determination of whether an accrual exists. The accrual is calculated as the amount by which the net value of a spouse’s estate at dissolution exceeds its net value at commencement. In this case, even using the applicant’s expert witness’s calculations, the value of the respondent’s estate at dissolution (R117,199,381) was lower than the commencement value (adjusted for inflation to R129 million), meaning no accrual had occurred and thus no claim could succeed.
For legal practitioners, this ruling emphasises the importance of advising clients to conduct thorough asset valuations before signing antenuptial contracts. The declared values will be binding, potentially affecting accrual claims worth millions of rands at the dissolution of marriage. Parties entering antenuptial contracts should understand they are making a binding agreement about these values, not merely recording factual information that can later be disputed.
The Court’s Interpretation of Section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act
The SCA’s analysis of section 6(3) of the MPA provides significant clarity on matrimonial property law in South Africa. At the heart of the Manelis judgment lies a careful statutory interpretation that distinguishes between different types of declarations regarding estate values at the commencement of marriage.
Acting Judge of Appeal Bloem meticulously unpacked the legislative framework, noting that section 6 of the MPA deals with two distinct scenarios: where commencement values are declared in the antenuptial contract itself, and where they are not declared but later specified in a statement. This distinction is crucial to understanding the evidentiary weight given to each type of declaration.
The court identified that section 6(1) provides an option to parties who have not declared commencement values in their antenuptial contract, allowing them to declare these values in a separate statement before marriage or within six months thereafter. Section 6(3) then establishes that such statements or antenuptial contracts without declared values serve as prima facie proof of commencement values, while section 6(4)(b) creates a deeming provision that if no value is declared, the commencement value is deemed to be nil unless proven otherwise.
The SCA rejected the “absurdity argument” raised in Thomas, which suggested that saying nothing about values in an antenuptial contract could not logically constitute prima facie proof of any value. The court pointed out that this argument fails to recognise the deeming provision in section 6(4)(b), which establishes a default value of nil that can be rebutted with evidence.
Citing the principle articulated in Casserley v Stubbs 1916 TPD 310 and National Credit Regulator v Opperman and Others [2012] ZACC 29, the court emphasised that legislation should not be interpreted as altering common law unless explicitly stated or necessarily implied. Nothing in section 6(3) indicates legislative intent to alter common law contractual principles that make parties bound by the terms of their agreements.
The SCA also addressed the cases of M v M (62488/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1220 and NHM v HMM (A193/22017; 62488/2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1108, which correctly held that parties are bound by declared commencement values in antenuptial contracts. The court noted that the fundamental difference between an antenuptial contract and a statement under section 6(1) is that the former represents a bilateral agreement requiring consent from both parties, while the latter is a unilateral declaration requiring only attestation by a notary and signature by the other spouse.
This interpretation aligns with South Africa’s matrimonial property system, which the Constitutional Court in EB v ER NO and Others and a similar matter 2024 (2) SA 1 (CC) described as one “in which agreement and choice are central.” The SCA’s ruling respects the contractual choices made by parties entering marriage, providing certainty about the legal consequences of declaring estate values in antenuptial contracts.
The judgment creates a coherent interpretative framework for section 6 of the MPA, distinguishing between conclusive proof (for values declared in antenuptial contracts) and prima facie proof (for values in statements or deemed values). This distinction serves the legislative purpose of providing certainty in the application of the accrual system while allowing flexibility where parties have not explicitly agreed on commencement values.
Implications for Couples Married Out of Community of Property with Accrual
The Manelis judgment has far-reaching consequences for South African couples who are married or planning to marry out of community of property with the accrual system. The SCA’s definitive interpretation creates certainty but also emphasises the gravity of declarations made in antenuptial contracts.
For prospective spouses, the ruling underscores the importance of thorough financial disclosure and accurate asset valuation before signing an antenuptial contract. Since commencement values declared in these contracts are now conclusively established as binding, couples must ensure these figures genuinely reflect their financial positions. Declaring artificially high or low values as a strategic consideration could have permanent legal consequences that cannot be undone during divorce proceedings.
Financial planners, accountants, and legal practitioners advising clients on antenuptial contracts must now exercise heightened diligence in helping clients establish accurate commencement values. This may involve commissioning formal valuations of business interests, property holdings, investment portfolios, and other significant assets before finalising the antenuptial contract.
For already married couples whose antenuptial contracts contain declared commencement values, the judgment clarifies that these declarations are conclusively binding in any future divorce proceedings. The only potential avenue to challenge such values would require establishing grounds like fraud, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence – a significantly higher bar than simply proving the declared value was factually incorrect.
The accrual system was introduced in 1984 through the MPA to create greater equity in marriages out of community of property, allowing both spouses to share in wealth accumulated during the marriage. However, the Manelis ruling demonstrates how the initial declarations can fundamentally determine whether any accrual claim will succeed. In this case, even though the respondent’s estate was valued at over R117 million at dissolution, the inflation-adjusted commencement value of R129 million meant no accrual had occurred, leaving the applicant without a valid claim.
This highlights how inflation adjustments to commencement values (which are standard practice and were agreed upon by the parties in Manelis) can significantly impact accrual calculations. Over long marriages, even modest inflation can substantially increase the adjusted commencement value, potentially eliminating accrual claims despite real growth in assets.
Legal practitioners must now advise clients that choosing between declaring commencement values in the antenuptial contract versus making a post-marriage statement under section 6(1) has significant evidentiary consequences. The former creates conclusive proof; the latter only prima facie proof that can be challenged.
This judgment also affects how divorce attorneys approach discovery and evidence gathering in accrual disputes. Where commencement values were declared in antenuptial contracts, resources should be directed toward establishing current estate values rather than attempting to challenge historical declarations. Conversely, where values were established through statements or deemed nil under section 6(4)(b), evidence challenging those prima facie values remains relevant.
The financial implications are substantial – in the Manelis case, the difference between interpretations represented approximately R18 million in potential claims. This ruling therefore has profound economic consequences for divorcing spouses and reinforces the adage that antenuptial contracts represent some of the most important financial decisions individuals make in their lifetimes.
Practical Advice: Ensuring Accuracy in Declaring Estate Values
The Manelis judgment necessitates a careful approach to declaring estate values in antenuptial contracts. Legal practitioners and couples should consider several practical strategies to navigate this area of matrimonial property law effectively in light of the SCA’s definitive interpretation.
When preparing antenuptial contracts, attorneys should advise clients to compile comprehensive asset registers with supporting documentation. This includes obtaining professional valuations for significant assets such as properties, business interests, investment portfolios, and valuable collections. For complex estates, engaging forensic accountants or specialist valuers may be prudent to establish defensible commencement values.
Parties should consider including detailed schedules of assets and liabilities as annexures to antenuptial contracts rather than merely stating aggregate values. This creates greater transparency and potentially provides contextual evidence should any future dispute arise about the contract itself (though not about the accuracy of the values declared).
The timing of signing antenuptial contracts becomes increasingly important under this ruling. Couples should allow sufficient time before their wedding date to properly assess their financial positions, rather than rushing valuations immediately before marriage. Financial circumstances can change rapidly, and values declared must accurately reflect the estate’s worth at the commencement of marriage.
For couples uncertain about precise asset values but who still wish to marry with the accrual system, the Manelis judgment identifies an alternative approach. Rather than declaring potentially inaccurate values in the antenuptial contract itself, parties might consider not declaring commencement values in the contract but instead making subsequent declarations through statements under section 6(1) of the MPA. These statements provide the flexibility of prima facie rather than conclusive proof, though this comes with less certainty.
Legal practitioners should discuss with clients whether certain assets might be excluded from the accrual calculation altogether, as permitted under section 4(1)(b) of the MPA. This can include inheritances, legacies, donations, and damages awards for personal injuries. Clearly identifying such excluded assets in the antenuptial contract can prevent future disputes about their treatment.
The inclusion of inflation adjustment mechanisms deserves careful consideration. While adjusting commencement values for inflation is standard practice (as occurred in Manelis where R68.7 million became R129 million), parties might want to explicitly agree on the inflation index to be used and calculation methodology within their antenuptial contract to prevent future disputes over these adjustments.
Regular financial disclosure between spouses during marriage can help maintain transparency about estate growth, potentially preventing surprises at dissolution. Though not legally required, maintaining updated records of estate values throughout the marriage can facilitate smoother accrual calculations if divorce occurs.
For high-net-worth individuals or those with complex financial affairs, consideration might be given to excluding the accrual system altogether, as permitted under section 2 of the MPA. The Manelis case demonstrates how declared commencement values can significantly impact accrual claims, potentially making complete separation of estates a cleaner option for some couples.
Finally, parties should understand that the Manelis judgment confirms that challenging declared commencement values during divorce proceedings is virtually impossible without attacking the antenuptial contract itself. This heightens the importance of full disclosure and honesty during the contract formation stage. Deliberately understating or overstating estate values could potentially constitute misrepresentation or fraud – one of the few grounds on which the contract’s terms might later be challenged.
The SCA’s clarification ultimately serves a valuable purpose in matrimonial property law: providing certainty about the binding nature of declarations in antenuptial contracts while encouraging thorough financial disclosure and accurate valuation practices that benefit both parties entering marriage under the accrual system.
Further Case Law
Ex parte Andersson and Another 1964 (2) SA 75 (C) is cited to establish the fundamental principle that community of property automatically applies to South African marriages unless explicitly excluded through an antenuptial contract. This case underscores the importance of antenuptial contracts as the mechanism through which parties can opt out of the default matrimonial property regime.
In analyzing statutory interpretation principles, the court references Wellworths Bazaars Ltd v Chandler’s Ltd and Another 1947 (2) SA 37 (A), which established that courts should be hesitant to conclude that words in legislation are tautologous or superfluous. This citation supports the SCA’s rejection of the contention that the phrase “contemplated in subsection (1)” in section 6(3) was erroneously inserted.
GN v JN [2016] ZASCA 162; 2017 (1) SA 342 (SCA) reinforces this interpretative principle, with the SCA previously stating that every word in legislation must be given meaning and no word should be ignored or treated as superfluous. This case strengthens the court’s conclusion that section 6(3) specifically refers only to antenuptial contracts where no commencement value is declared.
The judgment cites National Credit Regulator v Opperman and Others [2012] ZACC 29; 2013 (2) BCLR 170 (CC); 2013 (2) SA 1 (CC) where Cameron J affirmed the longstanding principle that every word in legislation must be given meaning and not treated as tautologous or superfluous. This Constitutional Court authority provides significant weight to the SCA’s statutory interpretation approach.
Casserley v Stubbs 1916 TPD 310 establishes the presumption that a statute does not intend to alter or modify common law unless explicitly stated or necessarily implied. The SCA relies on this early precedent to support its finding that section 6(3) does not alter common law contractual principles that make parties bound by terms of their agreements.
DM v CM 2022 (6) SA 255 (GJ) represents the reported version of the high court judgment that led to the appeal in Manelis. This case initially established that parties are bound by commencement values declared in antenuptial contracts, a position ultimately affirmed by the SCA.
These cases, together with those previously addressed, form the jurisprudential foundation upon which the SCA built its definitive interpretation of section 6(3) of the MPA, resolving the conflicting approaches that had emerged in South African matrimonial property law regarding the evidentiary status of commencement values declared in antenuptial contracts.
Questions and Answers
What was the central issue to be determined in the Manelis v Manelis case? The central issue was whether there had been an accrual in the respondent’s estate between the commencement of his marriage and its dissolution, which required first determining whether parties are bound by commencement values declared in antenuptial contracts or whether such values can be challenged during divorce proceedings.
How did the Supreme Court of Appeal interpret Section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act? The SCA interpreted Section 6(3) to apply only to antenuptial contracts where commencement values are not declared and to statements made under Section 6(1). The court held that where commencement values are declared in antenuptial contracts, such declarations constitute conclusive proof that binds the parties under common law contractual principles.
What was the commencement value declared by the respondent in the antenuptial contract? The respondent declared the commencement value of his estate as R68.7 million in the antenuptial contract, while the applicant declared her estate value as nil.
What argument did the applicant make regarding the commencement value of the respondent’s estate? The applicant argued that the R68.7 million commencement value declared by the respondent was overstated. She contended that based on an accurate calculation, the respondent’s estate had increased by approximately R36 million during the marriage, entitling her to half of that amount (approximately R18 million).
What happens to the commencement value of an estate when not declared in an antenuptial contract or statement? According to Section 6(4)(b) of the Matrimonial Property Act, if the commencement value is not declared in an antenuptial contract or statement, it is deemed to be nil unless the contrary is proved. This creates a rebuttable presumption that can be challenged with evidence.
What is the distinction made by the court between antenuptial contracts and statements under Section 6(1)? The court distinguished that an antenuptial contract represents a bilateral agreement requiring consent from both parties, while a statement under Section 6(1) is essentially a unilateral declaration requiring only attestation by a notary and signature (but not agreement on the value) by the other spouse.
What effect does inflation have on commencement values for accrual calculations? The judgment confirms that commencement values are typically adjusted for inflation when calculating accrual. In this case, the parties agreed that the commencement value of R68.7 million, when adjusted for inflation, equated to R129 million shortly before the dissolution of the marriage.
On what grounds can a commencement value declared in an antenuptial contract be challenged? A commencement value declared in an antenuptial contract can only be challenged on recognised common law grounds for attacking the contract itself, such as misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, fraud, or where rectification is sought due to common error.
What was the value of the respondent’s estate at dissolution according to the applicant’s expert witness? According to Mr Ryan Sacks, the applicant’s expert witness, the value of the respondent’s estate at dissolution was R117,199,381, which was still lower than the inflation-adjusted commencement value of R129 million.
How is accrual defined in the Matrimonial Property Act? Section 4(1)(a) of the Act defines accrual as “the amount by which the net value of his estate at the dissolution of his marriage exceeds the net value of his estate at the commencement of that marriage.”
What conflicting high court judgments were resolved by the Manelis case? The SCA resolved the conflict between two lines of high court judgments: one line (including Olivier v Olivier and Jones v Beatty) held that parties are bound by commencement values declared in antenuptial contracts, while the other line (including Thomas v Thomas and TN v NN) held that such declarations serve merely as prima facie proof.
What statutory interpretation principle did the court rely on regarding the phrase “contemplated in subsection (1)”? The court relied on the principle that every word in legislation must be given meaning and not treated as tautologous or superfluous. The SCA rejected arguments from previous cases suggesting that the phrase was erroneously inserted in Section 6(3).
What is the significance of Section 6(4)(b) in relation to the “absurdity argument”? Section 6(4)(b) undermines the “absurdity argument” raised in previous cases by establishing that when no value is declared, the commencement value is deemed to be nil unless proven otherwise. This creates a clear default position rather than an absurd situation where “saying nothing” constitutes proof of a value.
Did the applicant discharge the onus of proving an accrual? No, the applicant did not discharge the onus of proving an accrual. Even using her own expert’s calculations, the value of the respondent’s estate at dissolution (R117,199,381) was lower than the inflation-adjusted commencement value (R129 million), meaning no accrual had occurred.
What costs order did the SCA make? The SCA ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the costs of two counsel where employed. Additionally, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application for condonation for the late lodging of the appeal record.
The crux of the Manelis case in layman’s terms:
When a couple gets married “out of community of property with accrual” in South Africa, they sign a contract (antenuptial contract) stating what each person owns at the start of the marriage. The accrual system means that when they divorce, they share equally in whatever wealth was built up during the marriage.
In this case, the husband declared in their contract that he was worth R68.7 million when they got married. Years later during their divorce, the wife claimed this number was greatly exaggerated, and that based on the true starting value, she was entitled to about R18 million from the growth in his assets.
The Supreme Court ruled that once you’ve written down and signed off on these starting values in your marriage contract, you can’t later claim they were wrong—they’re legally binding. The only way to challenge them would be to prove fraud, duress, or other serious legal grounds for invalidating a contract.
The court said that even using the wife’s own expert’s calculations, the husband’s estate was actually worth less at divorce (R117 million) than his starting value adjusted for inflation (R129 million), meaning no growth had occurred during the marriage and she wasn’t entitled to any accrual payment.
The big takeaway: Be extremely careful about the financial values you declare in an antenuptial contract because you’ll be permanently bound by them—accurate or not—unless you can prove the contract itself should be invalidated.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in practising in Cape Town, the Atlantic Seaboard, Melkbosstrand and Paarl and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: