Manelis v Manelis

The applicant (wife) and respondent (husband) married on 29 April 2009 out of community of property, subject to the accrual system. In their antenuptial contract, the applicant declared the commencement value of her estate as nil and the respondent declared his as R68.7 million. On 15 September 2015, the applicant instituted divorce proceedings in the High Court seeking, among other relief, payment of half the accrual of the respondent's estate. The applicant disputed the accuracy of the R68.7 million commencement value declared in the antenuptial contract, alleging it was overstated, and claimed an accrual of approximately R36 million (entitling her to R18 million). The respondent contended his estate was worth approximately R11.5 million at dissolution, meaning no accrual existed. On 24 March 2022, the High Court granted a decree of divorce and dealt with ancillary matters, postponing the accrual issue. On 29 June 2022, the High Court dismissed the applicant's claim for accrual with costs, and on 3 November 2022 dismissed her application for leave to appeal.

• Whether the parties are bound by the commencement value declared in an antenuptial contract or whether such declaration serves merely as prima facie proof under section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984
• Whether section 6(3) applies to antenuptial contracts in which the commencement value of a party's estate is declared, or only to contracts in which no such declaration is made
• The distinction between an antenuptial contract and a statement contemplated in section 6(1) of the MPA
• Whether there was an accrual in the respondent's estate during the marriage
• Which party should pay costs occasioned by the application for condonation for late lodging of the appeal record

1. The application for leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include: 2.1 the costs of the application for leave to appeal; and 2.2 two counsel, where so employed. 3. The applicant shall pay the costs of the application for condonation for the late lodging of the appeal record.

Where parties to a marriage out of community of property, subject to the accrual system, declare the commencement value of their respective estates in an antenuptial contract, that antenuptial contract serves as conclusive proof of the declared commencement values and the parties are bound by those values. Section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, which provides that an antenuptial contract or statement serves as prima facie proof of commencement value, applies only to: (1) antenuptial contracts in which a party has not declared the commencement value of his or her estate ('contemplated in subsection (1)'); or (2) statements made in terms of section 6(1). Where commencement values are declared in an antenuptial contract, such values can only be challenged on recognized common law contractual grounds (misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, fraud, or rectification for common error). The distinction between an antenuptial contract (requiring agreement of both parties, thus binding and conclusive) and a statement (a unilateral act, thus serving only as prima facie proof) is fundamental to the interpretation of section 6.

The Court observed that South Africa's matrimonial property system is one in which agreement and choice are central. The Court noted that the very purpose of agreeing to commencement values in an antenuptial contract is to have certainty when giving effect to the accrual system. The Legislature intended commencement values to be declared in antenuptial contracts for the sake of certainty. The Court emphasized the canon of statutory interpretation that a statute does not intend to alter or modify the common law unless it states so explicitly or by necessary implication. The Court criticized the 'absurdity argument' advanced in previous cases (Olivier, Thomas) that the words 'contemplated in subsection (1)' were erroneously inserted in section 6(3), stating such an interpretation offends the well-established rule that meaning must be given to every word in legislation and no word should be treated as tautologous or superfluous. The Court also noted that for purposes of accrual calculations, the Legislature does not distinguish between calculations at the instance of spouses themselves or third parties like heirs or creditors, rejecting the finding in Olivier that section 6(3) was intended to apply only as against third parties.

This judgment resolves conflicting High Court authorities on the interpretation of section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. It establishes binding precedent that: (1) where parties declare commencement values in an antenuptial contract, those values are conclusive and binding on the parties (subject only to recognized common law contractual defences); (2) section 6(3)'s prima facie proof provision applies only to antenuptial contracts where no commencement value is declared and to statements made under section 6(1); (3) the distinction between antenuptial contracts and statements is significant—contracts require agreement and are binding, whereas statements are unilateral acts serving as prima facie proof only; (4) the presumption against altering the common law applies—section 6(3) does not modify common law contractual principles; and (5) every word in legislation must be given meaning—the words 'contemplated in subsection (1)' in section 6(3) were intentionally included and not erroneously inserted. The judgment provides certainty for parties who marry out of community of property subject to the accrual system regarding the effect of commencement value declarations in antenuptial contracts.