The applicant (D) and the respondent (C) were married out of community of property with inclusion of the accrual system and both recorded commencement values in their ante-nuptial contract (ANC). D’s declared commencement value was nil and C’s was R68.7m. In the course of the divorce proceedings D’s claims included requesting an order that C supply accounts to substantiate the commencement value. A divorce order was granted in March 2022 by the South Gauteng (Johannesburg) High Court, but the court refused D’s claim for the account by C to prove his commencement value at the commencement of the marriage. D argued that section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act, 88 of 1984 does not apply only to an ANC in which no commencement value was recorded, but to all ANCs including those in which the parties recorded commencement values. The relevant subsection reads:
(3) An antenuptial contract contemplated in subsection (1) or a certified copy thereof, or a statement signed and attested in terms of subsection (1) or a certified copy thereof contemplated in subsection (2), serves as prima facie proof of the net value of the estate of the spouse concerned at the commencement of his marriage.
Subsection 6(1) refers to “Where a party to an intended marriage does not for the purpose of proof of the net value of his estate at the commencement of his marriage declare that value in the antenuptial contract concerned, …” and then provides that a statement can be made by any of the parties stating a commencement value, signed by the other party, and then be lodged with the ANC in the notary’s protocol within six months after the marriage.
D relied solely on section 6(3) for the argument that she must be allowed to prove that the commencement value she and C agreed upon in their ANC is only prima facie proof of the value. She alleged that the value of C’s estate on the date of marriage was substantially less than the recorded R68.7m and that there was an accrual at date of divorce of R36m giving rise to an accrual claim of R18m in her favour. It was common cause that C’s CPI adapted commencement value on date of divorce was R129m, while the value of his estate on the same date was just over R117m, resulting in no accrual in his estate. Not satisfied with the High Court’s judgement D appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
The SCA (Bloem AJA (Zondi AP, Keightley and Coppin JJA and Phatshoane AJA concurring)) held that subsection 6(3) refers to ANC’s and statements contemplated in subsection 6(1) specifically. The court rejected the line taken by two high court decisions in other matters that it would be absurd to limit the provisions of subsection (3) only to the situation where no value was stipulated in the ANC as envisaged in subsection (1). The court held that the specific reference to subsection (1) cannot be ignored without regarding it as superfluous, which conflicts with the rule of interpretation of statutes that each word must be given meaning in the interpretation. Referring to another line of cases where it was held that subsection (1) clearly only deals with ANC’s where no commencement values were stipulated, the court held that contracting parties should be held to their contracts and that, in the absence of any common law contractual grounds to dispute the values, the commencement values recorded in the ANC are conclusive proof of the values of the estates on date of marriage. The appeal was dismissed with costs.