A M v H M (CCT95/19) [2020] ZACC 9; 2020 (8) BCLR 903 (CC) (26 May 2020)

A M v H M (CCT95/19) [2020] ZACC 9; 2020 (8) BCLR 903 (CC) (26 May 2020)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's constitutional challenges were raised for the first time before it and had not been ventilated in the High Court or Supreme Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment did not bar all agreements between spouses married out of community of property, but only found the specific agreement unenforceable as it purported to change the matrimonial regime without court sanction. The applicant's new arguments on contractual freedom, dignity, and discrimination were not previously considered and would prejudice the respondent if heard now. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify hearing the matter as a court of first and...

Citation
[2020] ZACC 9
Parties
Applicant: A M; Respondent: H M
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2020
Case Number
CCT95/19
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Victor
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property Act, Postnuptial Agreement, Leave to Appeal, Contractual Freedom, Public Policy
Family and Children Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Act Postnuptial Agreement Leave to Appeal Contractual Freedom Public Policy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A M

Applicant

H M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter given the factual findings of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether a registered antenuptial agreement can be overridden by a subsequent unregistered agreement between spouses.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's constitutional challenges were raised for the first time before it and had not been ventilated in the High Court or Supreme Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment did not bar all agreements between spouses married out of community of property, but only found the specific agreement unenforceable as it purported to change the matrimonial regime without court sanction. The applicant's new arguments on contractual freedom, dignity, and discrimination were not previously considered and would prejudice the respondent if heard now. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify hearing the matter as a court of first and...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Each party must pay his or her own costs.