- Attempt to invalidate antenuptial contract fails after husband argues marriage should be treated as community of property despite earlier admitting the contract governed the marriage.
- Judgment explains that vague wording or legally ineffective clauses do not necessarily invalidate an antenuptial contract.
- The court confirms that existing assets may be excluded from accrual, but future assets cannot automatically be excluded under the Matrimonial Property Act.
An antenuptial contract does not become invalid simply because some clauses are imperfectly drafted or attempt to exclude assets that the law does not allow.
This principle was reinforced in a divorce dispute between a husband and a wife, where the validity of an antenuptial contract signed two days before their marriage became the central issue in the litigation.
Acting Judge P Mogotsi had to decide this question during a trial-within-a-trial in the High Court in Johannesburg. The parties agreed that their marriage had irretrievably broken down. What remained in dispute was the marital property regime that would govern the financial consequences of their divorce.
The husband argued that the antenuptial contract should be declared void because it was vague, which would mean the marriage must be treated as one in community of property from the start. The wife maintained that the agreement remained valid and that they were married out of community of property, subject to the accrual system under the Matrimonial Property Act.
Why antenuptial contracts matter
Under South African law, couples who do not sign an antenuptial contract before their marriage are automatically married in community of property. This means both spouses share a joint estate and are equally responsible for the assets and debts of that estate.
An antenuptial contract allows couples to choose a different system. One of the most commonly used regimes is marriage out of community of property with accrual. In that arrangement, each spouse keeps a separate estate during the marriage, but when the marriage ends, the growth of the two estates during the marriage is compared, and the spouse whose estate grew less may claim a share of the difference.
The contract signed by the husband and wife followed this structure. It provided that there would be no community of property or community of profit and loss between them and that the accrual system established by the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 would apply to their marriage.
The agreement also listed specific assets belonging to each spouse that would be excluded from the accrual calculation. These included immovable property, vehicles, retirement annuities, investments and other personal property. The document further recorded that the net value of each spouse’s estate at the date of execution was nil.
Changing positions during the divorce
The divorce litigation began in 2019 when the summons was issued. The court noted that the husband initially admitted in his plea that the marriage was governed by an antenuptial contract subject to the accrual system.
More than a year later, he amended his plea and began challenging the validity of the contract. The timing of that change became part of the broader context considered by the court.
Evidence before the court showed that the wife’s estate had performed considerably better financially than the husband’s during the marriage. The financial implications of the marital property regime were therefore significant for both parties.
Earlier in the proceedings, the husband also sought to have the validity of the antenuptial contract determined as a separate preliminary issue. That application was dismissed by Judge Denis Lamont in 2021.
In that earlier ruling, Judge Lamont criticised the way the challenge had been pleaded. He pointed out that the pleadings alleged that the excluded assets were not properly identified, even though the contract attached to the papers contained a detailed list.
Judge Lamont further observed that the argument raised by counsel regarding the legal exclusion of certain assets had not been properly pleaded. He remarked that the issue the husband sought to raise was therefore not clearly defined.
Interpreting the antenuptial contract
In deciding the dispute, Judge Mogotsi applied the established principles of contractual interpretation set out by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality.
The judgment quoted the well-known passage explaining that interpretation requires a court to consider the language used, the context of the document and the purpose of the provision in order to attribute meaning to the words of a contract.
One of the husband’s central arguments was that the contract contained an internal contradiction. He argued that the agreement excluded existing assets from the accrual system while also recording that the net value of each spouse’s estate at the start of the marriage was nil. The judge rejected that argument.
“The contract is not attempting to both include and exclude the same assets,” Judge Mogotsi said. “It clearly excludes them in paragraph 3 and then, in paragraph 6, confirms that the starting point for the accrual that will grow during the marriage is zero.”
The court also rejected the claim that the listed assets were too vague to identify. “The circumstance that some assets may have been disposed of during the marriage, or replaced by other assets, does not render their description vague,” the judgment stated.
Excluding assets from accrual
The judgment also provides guidance on how assets may be excluded from the accrual system. The court accepted that some clauses in the contract attempted to exclude assets that did not yet exist when the marriage began. South African law does not allow spouses to exclude assets that will only be acquired in the future from the accrual system in advance.
However, the judge held that this does not invalidate the entire antenuptial contract. Instead, any clauses that attempt to exclude future assets must simply be interpreted in line with the Matrimonial Property Act.
Assets that existed when the marriage began such as immovable properties, retirement annuities and shareholdings, may validly be excluded from accrual.
Form versus substance
The court also considered the circumstances under which the antenuptial contract was concluded. The husband and wife both consulted with a notary before signing the document and testified that they understood the legal implications of the agreement.
In those circumstances, the judge cautioned against attempts to invalidate such agreements on technical drafting arguments.
“To attack the ANC on the basis of linguistic imprecision when the parties’ common intention is not in dispute is to elevate form over substance,” Judge Mogotsi said.
The court declared that the antenuptial contract concluded on 2 September 2004 is valid and confirmed that the husband and wife were married out of community of property subject to the accrual system in terms of the Matrimonial Property Act.
The divorce proceedings will now proceed to the main trial, where the patrimonial consequences of the divorce will be determined in light of that ruling.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
