The parties were married in 1992 out of community of property with the accrual system, subject to an antenuptial contract. The contract included a clause in which the wife waived any right to claim spousal maintenance upon dissolution of the marriage, in return for certain donations. The marriage broke down in 2010 and divorce proceedings were instituted. The wife claimed spousal maintenance, accrual, and full disclosure of the husband’s assets under the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. The husband relied on the waiver clause to resist the maintenance claim and contended that his estate showed no accrual because his assets were derived from excluded assets, including an inheritance. The High Court found the waiver clause unenforceable, made extensive adverse credibility findings against the husband for non-disclosure, and granted maintenance and accrual relief to the wife. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was upheld in part. The High Court’s orders on maintenance, accrual, and property were set aside and replaced. The husband was ordered to pay rehabilitative and thereafter ongoing maintenance to the wife, subject to inflation adjustments. The accrual in the husband’s estate was determined to be R8 892 482, and he was ordered to pay the wife half thereof, less a specified amount, with interest. Orders were made regarding transfer and occupation of the jointly owned Rondebosch property. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of appeal.
This judgment is significant for confirming that contractual waivers of spousal maintenance in antenuptial agreements may be unenforceable, reinforcing judicial oversight in divorce matters. It clarifies the burden of proof in accrual disputes, particularly where excluded assets are alleged, and emphasises the obligation of full and proper disclosure under the Matrimonial Property Act. The case also authoritatively confirms that a living annuity does not constitute part of a spouse’s estate for accrual purposes.