The parties were married out of community of property with the accrual system in terms of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. After approximately 14 years of marriage, divorce proceedings were instituted. All issues were settled by consent except for the respondent wife’s accrual claim against the appellant husband’s estate. The wife alleged that the husband’s estate had shown substantial accrual while hers had shown none. The husband disputed that any accrual had been proved and challenged the admissibility and sufficiency of the documentary and accounting evidence relied upon by the wife, which consisted primarily of schedules compiled by a chartered accountant from the husband’s discovered financial documents. The trial court found that an accrual had been proved and granted a monetary award and related orders in favour of the wife. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, save that the order of the trial court was amended. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent R6,478,717.75 by 30 November 2014, to transfer to her one half of his loan account in Full House Taverns (Pty) Ltd as at the date of divorce, and to pay the respondent’s costs of the action subject to specified exclusions and qualifications.
The case clarifies important principles relating to accrual claims under the Matrimonial Property Act, particularly the treatment of commencement values and excluded assets under antenuptial contracts. It affirms that schedules compiled from discovered documents are admissible where authenticity is not disputed and underscores that admissions made during cross-examination can be binding. The judgment also reinforces the principle that evidentiary objections not raised at trial cannot be relied upon on appeal.