- Woman wins right to seek a fair share of family assets after years of unpaid work.
- Court rules that unpaid work, caregiving, and emotional support are now legally recognised contributions in divorce.
- Ruling confirms that spouses married without accrual after 1984 can now ask for asset redistribution, even if their contract said otherwise.
For nearly two decades, a woman helped run her family’s lodge, raised children, and supported her husband, without ever being paid or formally recognised. When the marriage broke down, she requested a fair share of the assets from the court. But her marriage contract excluded accrual, meaning she wasn’t automatically entitled to anything.
Until recently, that would have been the end of the story. South African law didn’t allow redistribution for couples married out of the community of property without accrual after 1 November 1984. However, the Constitutional Court overturned this exclusion in EB v ER, ruling that it was unfair and unconstitutional. Now, spouses who gave years of unpaid work, emotional support, or caregiving can ask for a redistribution order, even if their contract says otherwise.
The husband tried to block her; the court said no
In this case, the woman asked to amend her divorce pleadings to include a redistribution claim. Her husband objected, saying she took too long, didn’t follow the rules, and hadn’t explained her claim properly. He argued that the amendment would prejudice him and undermine their contract.
But Acting Judge SM Msibi dismissed all of his objections. He said the woman’s request was honest, reasonable, and based on a major constitutional shift. The case hadn’t gone to trial yet, and the law now allows her to ask for what’s fair.
The judge made it clear that courts must prioritise justice over technicalities. He cited several cases, including Shoprite Checkers and Matjabeng Municipality, to show that procedural rules shouldn’t block someone from seeking redress, especially when the law itself has changed.
EB and RVB: The cases that changed everything
The judgment builds on two major cases, EB v ER and RVB v JVB. In EB, the Constitutional Court ruled that excluding post-1984 spouses from redistribution orders violated the right to dignity and equality. The court recognised that unpaid labour, whether in the home or in a family business, is a real contribution that deserves recognition.
RVB followed in 2024, confirming that redistribution claims can be added even after pleadings have closed. It reinforced the idea that courts must allow people to fully present their case, especially when constitutional rights are at stake.
Acting Judge Msibi’s ruling applies these principles directly. He confirmed that section 7(3) of the Divorce Act now covers all spouses married out of the community of property without accrual, regardless of when they got married. That means the woman’s claim is not only valid, but constitutionally protected.
Costs, consequences, and constitutional accountability
In a final decision, the judge ordered the husband to pay legal costs. He said the woman’s request was fair and that the husband’s opposition was based more on blocking her than on following the law.
This ruling sends a strong message that the courts are ready to recognise real-life contributions, not just what’s written in a contract. If you’ve given your time, energy, and care to a marriage, the law now sees you and gives you a chance to be treated fairly.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
