ST v CT

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 2018 (5) SA 479 (SCA)

ST v CT
2018 (5) SA 479 (SCA)

2018 (5) SA p479

Citation	2018 (5) SA 479 (SCA)
Case No	1224/16; [2018] ZASCA 73
Court	Supreme Court of Appeal
Judge	Majiedt JA, Saldulker JA, Dambuza JA, Plasket AJA and Rogers AJA
Heard	May 30, 2018
Judgment	May 30, 2018
Counsel	N Konstantinides SC (with F Gordon-Turner) for the appellant.; JG Dickerson SC (with J Anderssen) for the respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Marriage — Divorce — Proprietary rights — Accrual system — Calculation of estate's accrual — Onus to prove asset excluded from estate — Whether living annuity part of estate — Duty to furnish particulars of estate's value — Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, s 7. H

Marriage — Divorce — Maintenance — Antenuptial contract containing waiver of right to claim maintenance on dissolution of marriage — Enforceability of waiver.

Headnote : Kopnota

In the early-1990s Mr ST and Mrs CT concluded an antenuptial contract and I married. The marriage was out of community of property but subject to accrual.

In 2010 CT instituted proceedings for divorce. She claimed, inter alia, accrual and maintenance.

The High Court upheld her claims and ST appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. J

2018 (5) SA p480

It A considered, inter alia:

•

The duty of a spouse, on request, to 'furnish full particulars of the value of [his] estate', for the purpose of calculating the estate's accrual (see the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, s 7; and [33] – [36]);

•

The onus to prove an asset was excluded from an estate, for the purpose of calculating its accrual. Held, that it was on the party asserting its B exclusion (see [39]);

•

Whether the value of the capital underlying a living annuity was to be included in the estate of the annuitant, for the purpose of calculating the estate's accrual. Held, that it should not be (see [104] – [105] and [108]);

•

The enforceability of the clause in the antenuptial contract, in which CT waived her right to claim maintenance on dissolution of the marriage. C Held, that the clause was unenforceable (see [8] and [10]).

In Majiedt JA's view, this was because it offended public policy as expressed in s 7(2) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979. (See [171], [174], [178] and [182].)

In Rogers AJA's view, it was unnecessary to make this finding. This, in that the legislation accommodated the public policy-concerns, by giving the court a discretion to enforce agreements on maintenance. (Section 7(1) provides D that a court 'may' make an order in accordance with an agreement as to maintenance.) (See [171], [181], [183] and [198].)

Here, he would exercise the discretion by declining to enforce the waiver, for the reasons at [199].

Appeal upheld in part. The order is at [169].

Cases cited

Southern Africa E

AA Onderlinge Assuransie-Assosiasie Bpk v De Beer 1982 (2) SA 603 (A): dictum at 614G applied

AB v JB 2016 (5) SA 211 (SCA): dictum in paras [16] and [19] applied

African Diamond Exporters (Pty) Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd F 1978 (3) SA 699 (A): dictum at 713 applied

AM v JM 2011 JDR 0091 (WCC): dictum in para [43] applied

B v B [2014] ZASCA 137: dictum in paras [39] – [40] approved

Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC) (2007 (7) BCLR 691; [2007] ZACC 5): referred to

Bredenkamp and Others v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA) G (2010 (9) BCLR 892; [2010] 4 All SA 113): referred to

Brisley v Drotsky 2002 (4) SA 1 (SCA) (2002 (12) BCLR 1229; [2002] 3 All SA 363; [2002] ZASCA 35): referred to

Claassens v Claassens 1981 (1) SA 360 (N): dictum at 366G applied

Cooper and Another NNO v Merchant Trade Finance Ltd 2000 (3) SA 1009 (SCA): referred to

Dawood H and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2000 (3) SA 936 (CC) (2000 (8) BCLR 837; [2000] ZACC 8): referred to

De Kock v Jacobson and Another 1999 (4) SA 346 (W): distinguished

Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Willey 1956 (1) SA 330 (A): referred to

EH I v SH 2012 (4) SA 164 (SCA): referred to

Elesang v PPC Lime Ltd and Others 2007 (6) SA 328 (NC): distinguished

Government Employees Pension Fund v Naidoo and Another 2006 (6) SA 304 (SCA): distinguished

Kirkland v Kirkland 2006 (6) SA 144 (C): distinguished

Kudu Granite Operations (Pty) Ltd v Caterna Ltd 2003 (5) SA 193 (SCA) J ([2003] 3 All SA 1): dictum in para [28] applied

2018 (5) SA p481

Lincesso v Lincesso 1966 (1) SA 747 (W): referred to A

M v M [2016] ZAGPJHC 387: followed

Makate v Vodacom Ltd 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC) (2016 (6) BCLR 709; [2016] ZACC 13): referred to

Matlou v Makhubedu 1978 (1) SA 946 (A): referred to

MB v DB 2013 (6) SA 86 (KZD): followed

McIntosh v McIntosh [2011] ZAFSHC 116: distinguished B

Minister of Law and Order v Monti 1995 (1) SA 35 (A): referred to

Nyandeni Local Municipality v Hlazo 2010 (4) SA 261 (ECM): dictum in para [72] applied

Portinho v Portinho 1981 (2) SA 595 (T): referred to

Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Casey 1970 (2) SA 643 (A): referred to

R v Dhlumayo and Another 1948 (2) SA 677 (A): dictum at 705 – 706 applied C

Ritch and Bhyat v Union Government (Minister of Justice) 1912 AD 719: referred to

Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes 1989 (1) SA 1 (A) ([1988] ZASCA 94): dictum at 8C applied

Schierhout v Minister of Justice 1925 AD 417: referred to D

Schutte v Schutte 1986 (1) SA 872 (A): referred to

Strauss v Strauss 1974 (3) SA 79 (A): referred to

Van Zyl NO v Kiln Non-Marine Syndicate No 510 of Lloyds of London 2003 (2) SA 440 (SCA) ([2002] 4 All SA 355): referred to

W v H 2017 (1) SA 196 (WCC): upheld in part

Ward v Sulzer 1973 (3) SA 701 (A): dictum at 707A applied

Yarona Healthcare Network (Pty) Ltd v Medshield Medical Scheme E 2018 (1) SA 513 (SCA): dictum in para [48] applied.

Australia

Brooks v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd (1969) 121 CLR 432: referred to F

Hoult v Hoult [2013] FamCAFC 109: referred to.

Canada

Charles v Charles 1991 CanLII 551 (BC SC): referred to

Frazer v Van Rootselaar 2006 BCCA 198: referred to

Hartshorne v Hartshorne [2004] 1 SCR 550: referred to

Jenkins v Jenkins 2008 MBQB 271: referred to G

Loy v Loy [2007] OJ No 4274: referred to

M(L) v M(I) [2007] NJ No 379: referred to

Miglin v Miglin [2003] 1 SCR 303: referred to

Pelech v Pelech [1987] 1 SCR 801: referred to

Segal v Qu 2001 CanLII 28201 (ON SC): referred to

Small v Small 1993 CanLII 1709 (BC SC): referred to

Varney v Varney 2008 NBQB 389: referred to. H

England

BN v MA [2013] EWHC 4250 (Fam): referred to

H v H [2016] EWFC B81: referred to

Hyman v Hyman 1929 AC 601 ([1929] All ER Rep 245): referred to

Jessel v Jessel [1979] 3 All ER 645 (CA): referred to I

Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] 1 All ER 106 (HL): referred to

NG v SG [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam): dictum in para [16] followed

Powell & Wife v Streatham Nursing Home 1935 AC 243 (HL): referred to

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34: referred to

Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSCC 42: referred to

Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050: referred to. J

2018 (5) SA p482

New Zealand A

Ward v Ward [2009] NZSC 125: referred to.

Legislation cited

Statutes

The Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, s 7: see Juta's Statutes of South Africa B 2016/17 vol 7 at 4-199.

Case Information

N Konstantinides SC (with F Gordon-Turner) for the appellant.

JG Dickerson SC (with J Anderssen) for the respondent.

An appeal against a decision of Weinkove AJ in the Western Cape Division, Cape Town, reported as W v H 2017 (1) SA 196 (WCC).

Order C

(a)

The appeal is upheld in part.

(b)

Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the order of the High Court are set aside and substituted with the following (to avoid confusion, the paragraph numbering in the court a quo's order is retained):

'3.

Maintenance:

3.1

D The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff maintenance as follows:

(a)

R18 500 per month for one year as from 1 September 2016;

(b)

R13 500 per month for one year as from 1 September 2017;

(c)

R8500 per month as from 1 September E 2018.

3.2

The obligation to pay maintenance as aforesaid shall endure until the plaintiff's death or remarriage, whichever occurs first. The maintenance must be paid by way of debit order into such bank account as the plaintiff nominates F from time to time and by not later than the first day of each month. The defendant shall be entitled to deduct from the amounts specified in 3.1(a) and 3.1(b) the amounts of maintenance already paid pending the appeal.

3.3

The amounts of maintenance specified in 3.1 above are G expressed in nominal terms as at 1 September 2016. The amounts payable as from 1 September 2017 and 1 September 2018, respectively, and as from 1 September of each succeeding year, must be adjusted by the percentage change in the headline inflation rate (also known as the Headline Consumer Price Index) as notified by H Statistics SA (or its equivalent) (''the index''). Such percentage change shall for purposes of convenience be deemed to be equal to the latest index available from Statistics SA on the anniversary date.

4.

The accrual in the defendant's estate is held to be R8 892 482.

5.

I The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff half of this amount, minus R70 000 in respect of the plaintiff's net restitutionary obligation, ie a net amount of R4 376 241, by not later than 1 December 2018. Pending such payment, and as from 5 August 2016, interest shall run on the said net amount at the prescribed rate.

2018 (5) SA p483

Majiedt JA and Rogers AJA (Saldulker JA, Dambuza JA and Plasket AJA concurring)

6.

The Rondebosch property: A

6.1

The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant her undivided half-share in the...