Marais N.O. and Another v Maposa and Others

Mr and Ms Broodie were married in community of property for almost 50 years. The major asset of their joint estate was a 100% members’ interest in Seepunt Eiendomme CC, which owned a valuable Sea Point property. Without Ms Broodie’s knowledge or consent, Mr Broodie transferred 75% of this members’ interest in equal 25% portions to Ms Ledwaba (with whom he had a long-term relationship) and their two children in May 2014. Ms Broodie only discovered the donation shortly before Mr Broodie’s death in December 2016. Acting as executrix, she applied to have the transfer set aside on the basis that her consent was required under s 15(3)(c) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 and had not been obtained. The High Court held that her consent was deemed to have been given under s 15(9)(a). After her death, the executors of the joint estate pursued an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The transfer of 25% members’ interests to each of the first, second and third respondents was declared void. They were ordered to re-register the members’ interest in the name of the joint estate, failing which the Sheriff was authorised to act. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellants’ costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case authoritatively clarifies the interpretation of s 15(9)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act, confirming that third parties bear an affirmative duty to make reasonable enquiries before relying on deemed spousal consent. It reinforces the protection of spouses married in community of property against the dissipation of joint estate assets and strengthens equality and accountability in matrimonial property relations.