Western Cape High Court Rules: Death of Sole Director Incapacitates Company Without MOI Provision.
May 6, 2025A Case Note on Manelis v Manelis (Case No: 1235/22) [2025] ZASCA 55 (9 May 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Manelis v Manelis has delivered a pivotal judgment that settles a long-standing interpretative dispute concerning Section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 (“MPA”). The SCA held that where parties to an antenuptial contract declare the commencement value of their estates, such declarations are binding and constitute conclusive proof, unless challenged on recognised common law grounds. This decision brings much-needed clarity to the application of the accrual system in South African matrimonial law.
The parties were married out of community of property, subject to the accrual system. In their antenuptial contract, the respondent (the “defendant”) declared the net value of his estate at the commencement of the marriage as R68.7 million, while the applicant (the “plaintiff”) declared a NIL value. Upon divorce, the applicant disputed the accuracy of the respondent’s declared value, alleging it was overstated and that she was entitled to an accrual claim of approximately R18 million. The High Court dismissed her claim, and the matter proceeded to the SCA. The central issue before the SCA was whether the declared commencement value in the antenuptial contract served as prima facie or conclusive proof. The applicant relied on Section 6(3) of the MPA to argue that the declaration was merely prima facie proof and could be rebutted.
The respondent, however, contended that the declaration was contractually binding and could not be challenged in the absence of a recognised legal basis. The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory framework and relevant case law. It distinguished between two scenarios contemplated in Section 6 of the MPA: – one where a commencement value is declared in the antenuptial contract, and another where no such declaration is made, and a separate statement is filed in terms of Section 6(1).
The Court held that Section 6(3) applies only to the latter scenario and that a declaration in an antenuptial contract is binding and conclusive. The SCA rejected the interpretation advanced in Thomas v Thomas and TN v NN, which had previously held that such declarations were merely prima facie proof. Instead, the Court aligned itself with the reasoning in Olivier v Olivier, affirming that antenuptial contracts are governed by the common law of contract and that their terms, including declared commencement values, are enforceable unless vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, duress, or mutual error. Applying this interpretation to the facts, the Court found that the applicant had not pleaded any recognised ground to challenge the antenuptial contract.
The respondent’s declared value of R68.7 million, adjusted to R129 million at the time of divorce, was therefore binding. The applicant’s own expert valued the respondent’s estate at R117 million at the time of dissolution—less than the adjusted commencement value. As a result, no accrual had occurred, and the applicant’s claim failed. This judgment is of considerable significance for legal practitioners and parties entering into antenuptial contracts. It reinforces the principle of contractual certainty and underscores the importance of accurate and considered declarations of commencement values. The decision also provides clarity on the evidentiary status of such declarations and the limited circumstances under which they may be challenged.
In conclusion, Manelis v Manelis affirms that there is indeed no room for regret once parties have declared their commencement values in an antenuptial contract. The SCA’s ruling strengthens the integrity of matrimonial property contracts and ensures greater certainty in the application of the accrual system. Legal practitioners are advised to take heed of this judgment when advising clients on the financial implications of marriage and divorce.
For further details or inquiries, do not hesitate to reach out to:
Mr. Marinus Barnard at marinus@bdplaw.co.za or +27(0) 78 064 4776.
Authored by Mr. Marinus Barnard and Mr. Rudolf Britz – BDP ATTORNEYS [GARDEN ROUTE], situated at Church Corner, 2nd Floor, Church Corner Building, C/o Church & Courtenay Streets, George, 6530, Western Cape Province.
Marinus Barnard
Disclaimer
This legal article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for specific advice tailored to their individual circumstances.