In South African law, the only marriages recognised are civil marriages, customary marriages, and civil unions. The financial consequences of civil marriages are governed primarily by the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 (“MPA”), which recognises three marital regimes: marriage in community of property, marriage out of community of property without the accrual system, and marriage out of community of property with the accrual system. Each regime carries distinct legal and financial implications at the dissolution of the marriage. A recent Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) decision in Manelis v Manelis (Case no 1235/22) [2025] ZASCA 55 has placed the spotlight on how courts interpret the commencement value of an estate recorded in an antenuptial contract (“ANC”) under the accrual system, and the determination of the accrual of the estate of a spouse at the dissolution of the marriage. 

Marriage regimes

The regimes can be summarised as follows   –  

• MARRIAGE IN COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY: In this regime, the estates of both parties are merged into one joint estate. The parties have an equal share in the assets and liabilities of the joint estate. However, certain assets are excluded from the joint estate, such as donations received, gifts, inheritances and non-patrimonial damages.
• MARRIAGE OUT OF COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY WITHOUT THE ACCRUAL: Here, the assets and liabilities of each spouse remain entirely separate. Neither party has a claim to the other's assets or is liable for the other's debts.  However, a court granting a divorce can order a redistribution of assets in terms of section 7 of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court judgment of Greyling v Minister of Home Affairs and others (CCT 158/2022).  It should be noted that no redistribution is possible if the marriage ends in death.
• MARRIAGE OUT OF COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY WITH THE ACCRUAL: This regime requires the parties to enter into and register an ANC before the marriage is solemnised. The effect of the accrual is that the parties keep their assets separate from one another and are liable for their own debts or liabilities incurred during the marriage. However, the spouse with a smaller accrual has a right to claim or share against the higher accrual at the dissolution of the marriage, whether dissolved by death or divorce. The claim that can be instituted is for the half difference between the end value (net) and the commencement value (net) of the estate that has accrued the most. 

Background of the case

On 9 May 2025, the SCA handed down a judgment in the appeal case of Manelis v Manelis, where the commencement net value as recorded in the ANC came under scrutiny. The central issue in this appeal case was whether there was an accrual payable by the respondent, Mr Constantinos Charles Manelis (husband) to the applicant, Mrs Dominique Camilla Manelis (wife) in terms of the provisions of their ANC, or whether Mrs Manelis had an accrual claim against Mr Manelis’s estate.

The parties were married out of community of property subject to the accrual system, and their ANC was registered on 29 April 2009. On 15 September 2015, Mrs Manelis instituted divorce proceedings against her husband for a decree of divorce, along with other ancillary relief. On 22 March 2022, the court a quo granted a decree of divorce, with an order dealing with the primary residence and care of the parties’ minor son, along with an order for rehabilitative maintenance. The issue relating to whether there was an accrual payable by Mr Manelis to his wife was adjourned by the court a quo, and was to be decided on at a later stage.

On 29 June 2022, the court a quo dismissed Mrs Manelis’s claim for a share in the accrual of her husband’s estate with costs. Mrs Manelis then launched an application for leave to appeal, which was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the ruling or attitude adopted by the court a quo, Mrs Manelis then launched an application for leave to appeal the decision to a two-judge bench. The two judges referred her application for leave to appeal for the hearing of oral argument in terms of section 17(2)(d) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, along with an order for parties to be prepared to address the SCA on the merits of the appeal case, if called upon.

SCA Judgment

While the SCA granted the applicant’s (Mrs Manelis) application for leave to appeal, it dismissed her appeal with costs. The rationale was that the SCA had to assess whether there had been an accrual in the respondent’s (Mr Manelis) estate from the commencement of their marriage to the date of dissolution of the marriage. The respondent’s commencement value as recorded in the ANC was R 68.7 million. However, the applicant disputed this, claiming it was not the correct commencement value, and argued that the respondent’s estate, as at the date of dissolution, far exceeded his commencement value by R 36 million. The respondent argued that his estate had decreased significantly since his last calculation (on 4 October 2021) and that his estate was now only about R11.5 million. This was substantially less than his declared commencement value in the ANC (considering the figures adjusted in line with inflation).

The court a quo ruled that the parties were bound by the commencement values as they appeared in the ANC (of 29 April 2009), and that the net value of the respondent’s estate at dissolution of the marriage did not exceed the net value of his estate at the commencement of the marriage. In these circumstances, the applicant would not be entitled to any accrual or a claim against the respondent’s estate.

The SCA came to the same conclusion as the court a quo, after considering:

• The relevant legislative framework around the issue
• The various conflicting judgments
• The correct interpretation of section 6(3) and section 4 of the MPA

Legislative framework

During judgment, the SCA stated that in terms of section 3(1) of the MPA, at the dissolution of a marriage out of community of property with the accrual system, “the spouse whose estate shows no accrual or a smaller accrual than the estate of the other spouse, acquires a claim against the other spouse of an amount equal to half the difference between the accruals of the respective estates of the spouses”.

Furthermore, an ANC that is concluded in terms of section 6(1) of the MPA, read together with section 6(3), serves as prima facie evidence of the net value of the estate. In terms of section 4 of the MPA, the net value of the estate is only deemed to be nil if the assets exceed the liabilities, or if the value was not declared in the ANC or statement in terms of section 6(1), unless otherwise proven—which in this case, was not proven. Here, the applicant failed to prove anything to the contrary or attack the ANC on any other grounds.

Conflicting judgments

There have been various conflicting judgments, all considering the issue of whether the ANC as it stands, is prima facie proof of the commencement value of the estate. The judgments of Oliver v Oliver 1998 (1) SA 550 (D & CLD), Jones and Another v Beatty NO and Others 1998 (3) SA 1097 (TPD), NHM v HMM (A193/22017; 62488/2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 110  and SCA ruling of M v M (62488/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1220, were all considered in this case. The SCA indicated that these judgments seem to confirm that the commencement value as recorded in the ANC should be binding on the parties. The ANC is a contract that records the intentions of parties to an impending marriage, and these intentions are binding on the parties.

On the other hand, the decisions of Thomas v Thomas [1999] 3 All SA 192 (NC), and TN v NN 2018 (4) SA 316 (WCC) suggest that there was no intention on the part of the legislature for the declared value in the ANC to be binding on any of the parties to the contract. The declared or recorded commencement values only serve as prima facie evidence of the commencement values, and if the value was never declared, it was left open to an interested party to prove the actual commencement value of the estates.

Interpretation of section 6(3) of the MPA

While section 6 of the MPA speaks specifically to the commencement value of an estate of a party and for practical reasons, in the absence of proof being adduced at the start of the marriage, it would be difficult to ascertain whether there was any growth or “loss” in the estate of either party. Section 6(3) of the MPA goes on to refer to an ANC contemplated in section 6(1) or a certified copy of the ANC of a statement signed and attested to in terms of section 6(1). An ANC that is governed by section 6(3) serves as prima facie proof of the value of the estate of the spouse at the commencement of the marriage.

The question to consider is whether an ANC, as contemplated in section 6(1) of the MPA, means any ANC, including an ANC where there is a declared value or commencement value recorded. To interpret the law in such a way suggests that the ANC, statement or certificate can serve as prima facie evidence, as outlined in Section 6(1), would be incorrect. The fact of the matter is that an ANC is a contract and the parties ought to be bound by the provisions of their contract.

Conclusion

In this SCA case, the parties had declared commencement values in their ANC, and these values bound them according to the provisions of the MPA. An ANC is a contract, and should be challenged based on common law, like other contractual disputes. The applicant failed to challenge the validity of the ANC or prove that she had been coerced, placed under duress, or lacked the capacity to conclude the contract.

The SCA indicated that if the calculations provided by the applicant’s expert witness (Mr Ryan Sacks)  were accepted, it would mean that the respondent’s estate was valued at less than R 129 million and amounted to R 117,119,381 at the date of dissolution (which is less than the commencement value).  Therefore, the SCA determined that no accrual was due to the applicant, as a negative amount can never exist. Under these circumstances, there was no accrual owed to the applicant, and consequently, the applicant’s appeal was dismissed with costs.

This judgment reinforces the principle that an ANC is not just a formality but a binding contract with significant legal and financial consequences. It serves as a warning and reminder for couples to seek independent legal advice before entering into or concluding any contracts, and obtain clear legal guidance before entering into an ANC, as disputes over accrual can lead to protracted, costly, and unnecessary litigation if not carefully managed from the outset.