CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Van der Merwe v Van der Merwe

Citation(843/2018) [2019] ZASCA 76
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Family LawContract Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Matrimonial Property Law

Facts of the Case

On 7 January 2011, the parties signed a power of attorney authorizing an attorney (Mr Weyers) to sign an ante-nuptial contract on their behalf before a notary public. The marriage was scheduled for 8 January 2011. The appellant was a professional rugby player and the respondent ran a finishing and modelling school. When signing the power of attorney, the respondent became distressed upon learning the marriage would be out of community of property without accrual. She expressed preference for a marriage with accrual. According to her version, she was assured by both the appellant and Mr Weyers that the ante-nuptial contract would be amended after the honeymoon to include accrual. The appellant denied making such assurance and testified he would not have married if accrual was included. The ante-nuptial contract was registered with Clause 3 expressly excluding the accrual system. In October 2012, the appellant sued for divorce. The respondent counterclaimed for rectification of the ante-nuptial contract to include accrual, alleging common intention of parties was not reflected in the contract.

Legal Issues

  • Whether rectification of the ante-nuptial contract was competent in circumstances where there was no common mistake or common continuing intention between the parties
  • Whether Clause 3 of the ante-nuptial contract expressly excluding the accrual system could be deleted on the basis of lack of consensus
  • Whether a declaratory order that the accrual system applies could be made despite the clear terms of the registered ante-nuptial contract
  • The requirements for rectification of a written agreement under South African law
  • The effect of section 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 requiring express exclusion of accrual in the ante-nuptial contract itself

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Full Court was set aside and substituted with an order upholding the appeal with costs including costs of two counsel. The trial court's order was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the defendant's (respondent's) counterclaim relating to rectification and ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs relating to the dispute on rectification.

Ratio Decidendi

Rectification of a written agreement requires proof of a common continuing intention of the parties that is not reflected in the agreement, or a common mistake. Where there is no consensus between parties regarding a material term, and no common mistake or misunderstanding, rectification is not competent. Section 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 requires that the accrual system must be expressly excluded in the ante-nuptial contract itself. Clear and unambiguous terms of a registered ante-nuptial contract cannot be deleted or ignored on the basis of lack of consensus alone or the unilateral assertion of one party. The integration (parole evidence) rule prevents extrinsic evidence from contradicting, adding to or modifying the meaning of a document intended to provide a complete memorial of a jural act.

Obiter Dicta

The court observed that generally contracts entered into between adults of full contractual capacity are enforced to the letter and courts should refrain from creating contracts for parties. The court noted that a registered ante-nuptial contract gives notice to the world and binds third parties including creditors, which is why it cannot be amended by parties between themselves. The court commented that section 88 of the Deeds Registries Act provides for court authorization for post-nuptial execution of a notarial contract only where terms were agreed before marriage, which was not the case here. The court also noted that the declaratory order made by the trial court failed to address the issue of net values of the parties' estates required under section 4 of the Act, which would result in the absurdity that the ante-nuptial contract would still not comply with the Act even if the order were upheld.

Legal Significance

This case is significant in South African family law and contract law for clarifying the strict requirements for rectification of ante-nuptial contracts. It establishes that rectification cannot be used to escape clear contractual terms where there is no common mistake or common continuing intention between parties. The judgment reinforces the importance of the express exclusion requirement in section 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 and protects the sanctity of registered ante-nuptial contracts. It serves as an important reminder that courts will not create contracts for parties or override clear written terms based on unilateral expectations or disputed oral assurances. The case also emphasizes that registered ante-nuptial contracts bind third parties and cannot be amended by parties between themselves without court authorization under section 88 of the Deeds Registries Act.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 4 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • B v B(700/2013) [2014] ZASCA 137 (25 September 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the predominant requirement for rectification is a common continuing intention of the parties which is not reflected in the…

  • Novartis South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Maphil Trading (Pty) Ltd(20229/2014) [2015] ZASCA 111
    Applies

    Court applies the proper approach to interpretation of contracts including the integration rule and the principle that interpretation is a matter of law.

  • Tesven CC and Another v South African Bank of AthensCase No. 312/97 & 523/97
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that allowing the words parties used to override their prior agreement would be to enforce what was not agreed and overthrow the basis…

Cited By 63 Cases

  • Adhu Investments CC and Others v Kumaran Padayachee(1410/2016) [2019] ZASCA 63
    Follows

    Applied as authority that courts are slow to import a tacit term when the written contract is comprehensive and does not require a tacit term for business…

  • AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others (No 2)[2014] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Cited in relation to the constitutional obligations of guardians of constitutional rights like SASSA.

  • Bapedi Marota Mamone v Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims and Others[2014] ZACC 36
    Cites

    Cited in support of the rule that litigants must stand or fall by the case made in founding papers

  • Baron and Others v Claytile (Pty) Limited and Another[2017] ZACC 24
    Cites

    Cited on the circumstances that may lead to the right of residence being terminated.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Bennett Madala Mkhatswa v Minister of DefenceCase No: 413/97 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
Cites

Cited to illustrate that the general manner of harm must be reasonably foreseeable, though the precise manner need not be.

  • Blose v Ethekwini Municipality[2015] ZASCA 87 (29 May 2015)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the discretion under Rule 28(11) must be exercised judicially, upon a consideration of all relevant factors, and in essence it…

  • Boplaas 1743 Landgoed (Pty) Ltd v Sophia Julies and OthersLCC 151/2022
    Considers

    Applicant submitted this case as relevant to the question of fundamental breach of trust relationship under ESTA, but court did not engage with it as the…

  • Cape Explosive Works Limited v Denel (Pty) LtdCase No: 60/99, [2001] (reported in 1999 (2) SA 419 (T) - court a quo)
    Cites

    Cited in the discussion of whether the rule that a servitude cannot cast an active obligation on the servient tenement is absolute.

  • Chipkin (Natal) (Pty) Limited v The Commissioner for the SA Revenue ServiceCase number: 190/04
    Distinguishes

    Court distinguishes Trollip JA's approach in Van der Merwe, which treated partnership income globally, as not appropriate after introduction of section 24H.

  • Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited v Aventis Pharma SA and Aventis Pharma SA v Cipla Life Sciences (Pty) Ltd (consolidated appeals)(139/2012) [2012] ZASCA 108 (26 July 2012)
    Applies

    Court applies the delictual principle that a person is liable for aiding and abetting another to commit a delict, including contributory infringement of patent.

  • Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Van der Merwe NO and Others(598/2015) [2016] ZASCA 138 (29 September 2016)
    Appeal From

    The Supreme Court of Appeal (Lewis, Theron, Wallis, Petse and Dambuza JJA) dismissed the appeal with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The court held…

  • Daniël Mostert v Cape Town City CouncilCase No 356/98 (Supreme Court of Appeal, delivered 7 September 2000)
    Applies

    The court applies the principles guiding the exercise of discretion to admit new evidence after judgment is reserved as set out in this case.

  • Daniels v Scribante and Another(CCT 50/16) [2017] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Cited to establish jurisdiction and note vulnerabilities of ESTA occupiers, especially women.

  • D B Botha v Giyose t/a Paragon Fisheries(447/06) [2007] ZASCA 73
    Distinguishes

    The court a quo incorrectly relied on Gravett; the SCA clarifies that this case was misplaced authority and does not apply where an agent contracts on behalf…

  • Eugene De Vos du Plessis and Another v Alexander Floris Kriel N.O. and Others[2023] ZALCC 51
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that ESTA is remedial legislation umbilically linked to the Constitution seeking to protect people whose tenure of land is insecure,…

  • Fourie v Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc(653/2016) [2017] ZASCA 91 (7 June 2017)
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that this court should not engage in guesswork to determine an appropriate percentage for differential contingency deduction.

  • Grobler v Master of the High Court & others(645/2018) [2019] ZASCA 119 (23 September 2019)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that s 2(1) of the Wills Act is designed to ensure authenticity and guard against false or forged wills, and that the court is…

  • Hack Stupel and Ross Attorneys v Leslie Kgang(560/06) [2007] ZASCA 132
    Considers

    The court below relied on this case for the principle that courts should endeavour on the basis of available evidence to award a party who suffered damages…

  • Hendrick Pieter Le Roux and Others v Louis Dey(CCT 45/10) [2011] ZACC 4
    Applies

    Court applies two-stage enquiry: first establish ordinary meaning of statement, second determine if that meaning is defamatory.

  • James William Thomas and Another v Barend Johannes Thomas(1223/2021) [2023] ZASCA 36 (31 March 2023)
    Distinguishes

    The court distinguished this case where a trustee abandoned immovable property which could be re-vested after rehabilitation, from the current case involving…

  • Johannes Nicolaas Jacobs and Others v Christiaan Bester and OthersCase number not provided in judgment - Worcester Magistrate's Court, eviction order dated 20 October 2022, automatic review heard 10 January 2023
    Follows

    The court follows the principle that describing a woman's occupation as being 'under her husband' is demeaning and subordinates her rights; she is an occupier…

  • Kabelo Betlane v Shelly Court CC(CCT 14/10) [2010] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited at para 122 for the principle that a party must stand or fall by their notice of motion and founding affidavit and may not make out a new case in a…

  • Le Roux v The Honourable Magistrate Mr Viana(494/06) [2007] ZASCA 173
    Cites

    Cited as authority for the proposition that the focal issue should be the lawfulness of the warrant rather than the capacity in which it was issued.

  • Lupacchini NO and Another v Minister of Safety and Security(16/2010) [2010] ZASCA 108 (17 September 2010)
    Follows

    Followed Simplex in holding that a contract concluded by unauthorised trustees was invalid, and persuasively rejected the decision in Kropman NO v Nysschen…

  • Madelein Brisley v Antoinette DrotskySaak no: 432/2000
    Cites

    Cited for doubt about whether a court may suspend execution of an eviction order.

  • Makwakwa and Others v Minister of State Security(1316/2022) [2024] ZASCA 41 (5 April 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for the proposition that the Schlesinger test applies equally to relief obtained on facts which are incorrect because they have been misstated or…

  • Menzi Simelane NO and Others v Seven-Eleven Corporation SA (Pty) Ltd and AnotherCase no 480/2001 [2002] ZASCA (26 November 2002)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that bodies required only to investigate need not in general observe the rules of natural justice depending on circumstances.

  • Michael Felthun v The StateCase No: 458/96
    Applies

    Applied for the correct approach to the exercise of judicial discretion in allowing a party to reopen its case and lead evidence after closure, treating…

  • Michael Hermann Armbruster and Another v The Minister of Finance and Others(CCT 59/06) [2007] ZACC 17
    Cites

    Full Court of Cape High Court considered when and how forfeiture occurs, distinguishing Action Engineering and finding forfeiture does not occur immediately…

  • Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Dingaan Hendrik Nyathi(CCT 53/09) [2009] ZACC 29
    Cites

    The Court cites this case in relation to the public service policy values of batho pele.

  • Minister for Safety and Security v Gary Walter Van Der Merwe and Others[2011] ZACC 19
    Follows

    The Court followed Powell's principles that a warrant must convey intelligibly to both searcher and searched the ambit of the search it authorises, and if too…

  • Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Van der Merwe and Others(556/09) [2010] ZASCA 101 (7 September 2010)
    Follows

    The court followed Powell for the principle that statutes authorising search and seizure must be construed strictly in favour of minimum invasion of common law…

  • Minister of Safety and Security v Bennett(302/06) [2007] ZASCA 139
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a warrant must be strictly interpreted and for the comprehensive discussion of the authorities on this point.

  • Minister of Safety and Security v Kruger(183/10) [2011] ZASCA 7 (8 March 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts examine the validity of warrants with 'a jealous regard for the liberty of the subject'.

  • Minister of Safety and Security v Magagula(991/2016) [2017] ZASCA 103 (6 September 2017)
    Cites

    Court cites this case in support of the definition and understanding of suspicion in relation to lawful arrest.

  • Minister of Safety and Security v Mustafa Mohamed(598/10) [2011] ZASCA 134 (21 September 2011)
    Considers

    Considered and referred to by the court a quo in the discussion of the validity of search warrants.

  • Mittal Steel South Africa Limited and Others v Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and AnotherCase No: 70/CAC/Apr07 (Competition Appeal Court) - Judgment delivered 29 May 2009
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that prejudice to the other party is not necessarily determinative in deciding to allow further evidence.

  • Mogale Winston Stanford Modiri v The Minister of Safety and Security(581/2010) [2011] ZASCA 153 (28 September 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the gist or sting of a defamatory statement is determined by reference to a reasonable reader of ordinary intelligence as an…

  • Moladora Trust v Magalone Mereki and OthersLCC70/2022; [2022] ZALCC (Judgment delivered 11 November 2022)
    Follows

    The Court follows the Constitutional Court's interpretive guidance on ESTA, including that consent in ESTA is broad and includes tacit consent, and that a…

  • Monteiro and Another v Diedricks(1199/2019) [2021] ZASCA 015 (2 March 2021)
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle that the will to have a thing for oneself is required for possession.

  • Moyeni v De Vries and Others NNO(808/2019) [2020] ZASCA 128 (13 October 2020)
    Cites

    Court cites this case for the principle that ESTA is remedial legislation umbilically linked to the Constitution, intended to protect people whose tenure of…

  • Mxolisi Mananga and Others v Minister of Police(342/2020) [2021] ZASCA 71 (04 June 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for Lord Devlin's formulation of the meaning of 'suspicion' in the context of arrest.

  • National Credit Regulator v Dacqup Finances CC trading as ABC Financial Services – Pinetown and Another(382/2021) [2022] ZASCA 104 (24 June 2022)
    Follows

    Cited as endorsing Lord Devlin's test of reasonable suspicion.

  • National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development(20781/2014) [2015] ZASCA 206
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that government has a special duty to the courts in constitutional litigation and must be open and accountable.

  • Ndamase v Functions 4 AllCase No 100/2003
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that powers may be conferred expressly or by implication and that ancillary powers necessary to give effect to jurisdiction are…

  • Odendaal v Ferraris(422/2007) [2008] ZASCA 85
    Applies

    Court applies Van Der Merwe v Meades to establish the test that a buyer must show that the seller knew of the latent defect, did not disclose it, and…

  • Pompo Joseph Goqwana v The Minister of Safety and Security NO and Others(20668/14) [2015] ZASCA 186 (30 November 2015)
    Follows

    The court follows Powell which held that search warrants would be scrutinised with sometimes technical rigour and exactitude, and that a general ransacking by…

  • Quinella Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and OthersLCC 03/2010
    Cites

    Cited for constitutional principles requiring the state to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations and to lead by example.

  • SA Airlink (Pty) Ltd v South African Airways (SOC) Limited (in Business Rescue) and Others(238/2020) [2020] ZASCA 156
    Applies

    Applied for the factors relevant in determining whether it is appropriate to lift the moratorium during business rescue, including the effect on applicants'…

  • Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd and AnotherCase No 12/97 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the general manner of harm must be reasonably foreseeable, not the precise manner.

  • Snyers v Mgro Properties (Pty) Ltd(20816/2014) [2016] ZASCA 151 (30 September 2016)
    Applies

    The judgment was prepared with the benefit of Klaase, which concerned similar issues of eviction under ESTA where the spouse of a farm employee had to be…

  • South African Reserve Bank v Leathern N O and Others(854/2020) [2021] ZASCA 102
    Applies

    Applied Lord Devlin's formulation of the meaning of 'suspicion' in assessing whether the Reserve Bank had reasonable grounds to block the accounts.

  • The Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng Region and Sasol Mining (Pty) Ltd v Save the Vaal Environment, Ronsand Ranch (Pty) Ltd, Giovanni Alberto Mario Ravazzotti, Susan Sellschop and Lynne Dale GreenCase no: 133/98
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the audi alteram partem rule applies to preliminary decisions that lay the necessary foundation for possible decisions which may…

  • The Minister of Safety and Security and Johan Jacobus Becker v Pieter Nicolaas Rudman and Petrus Botha SchabortCase No: 218/2003, Supreme Court of Appeal (Reportable)
    Cites

    Cited for the test of novus actus interveniens: whether the intervening act was an inherent risk created by the initial negligence and reasonably foreseeable.

  • The National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma(639/06) [2007] ZASCA 137
    Applies

    Hurt J relied on this court's dictum that a warrant must convey intelligibly to both searcher and searched the ambit of the search it authorises.

  • Ukwanda Leisure Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Street Spirit Trading 92 (Pty) Ltd
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that disappointment of contracting parties' expectations does not justify judicial amendment of their acts.

  • UNTU obo David Mahabe v D J G Woolfrey N.O. and OthersCase no: C 678 / 19 (Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town)
    Applies

    Applied to hold that delay before notices are delivered as well as delay in filing the condonation application are both of importance, and if no reasonable…

  • Van der Merwe v National Director of Public Prosecutions(373/09) [2010] ZASCA 129 (30 September 2010)
    Appeal From

    Van der Merwe appealed to the Constitutional Court seeking to have the currency released. The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal.

  • Vorster v Clothing City (Pty) Ltd(159/2023) [2024] ZASCA 53 (19 April 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for determining that jurisdiction is based on the value of the claim at the time of commencement, and only that value determines whether jurisdiction…

  • Werner v Florauna Kwekery BK(224/14) [2015] ZASCA 46 (26 March 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that where the creation of a work or construction can be shown and dated, the doctrine of vetustas (immemorial user) does not apply.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Family Law cases

    • Abigail Alfeto v Herbert ChapagutaHH 438-22, HC 11544/18
    • Abigail Chibadura (Nee Mubariki) v David Tongesai ChibaduraHH 264-16, HC 9486/14
    • Abigail Chimanga (Nee Mazvimbakupa) v Delight ChimangaHH16-26, HCH 7814/22
    • Abigail Makono (Nee Billie) v Charles Nyengera Makono and OthersHH 638-25, HCH 2271/25 (Ref HCH 2634/21)
    • Ad Hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another v DM[2024] ZAWCHC 170
    • Agnes Maringa v Wilson Mukandatsama and Director of Housing (City of Gweru)HB 28/19, HC 1424/18
    • Agnes Paradza v Brighton Paradza and OthersHH 214-2011, HC 9439/11
    • Ahmed Raffik Omar v The Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97