H M v A M (1317/17) [2019] ZASCA 12 (14 March 2019)

H M v A M (1317/17) [2019] ZASCA 12 (14 March 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the postnuptial agreement was concluded in contemplation of divorce. The evidence showed that at the time of signing, neither party had mentioned divorce, and the marital relationship continued as normal. The respondent herself testified that the agreement was intended as an 'insurance policy' for her financial security in the event of divorce, not as a settlement of any existing legal dispute. The first mention of divorce occurred only after the discovery of the appellant's extramarital affair, weeks after the agreement was signed. Therefore, the agreement did not embody the settlement of...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 12
Parties
Appellant: H M; Respondent: A M
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2019
Case Number
1317/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, on Separated Issue Regarding Validity and Enforceability of Postnuptial Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; high court order set aside; matter remitted to regional court to finalise maintenance for respondent and any dependent child.
Judges
Cachalia, Majiedt, Schippers, Mokgohloa, Matojane
Legal Topics
Postnuptial Agreement, Divorce Settlement, Maintenance, Matrimonial Property Regime
Family and Children Civil Procedure Postnuptial Agreement Divorce Settlement Maintenance Matrimonial Property Regime

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H M

Appellant

A M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, on Separated Issue Regarding Validity and Enforceability of Postnuptial Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written postnuptial agreement was concluded in contemplation of divorce.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement is valid and enforceable as a settlement agreement relating to the divorce action.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving that the agreement was made in anticipation of divorce.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the postnuptial agreement was concluded in contemplation of divorce. The evidence showed that at the time of signing, neither party had mentioned divorce, and the marital relationship continued as normal. The respondent herself testified that the agreement was intended as an 'insurance policy' for her financial security in the event of divorce, not as a settlement of any existing legal dispute. The first mention of divorce occurred only after the discovery of the appellant's extramarital affair, weeks after the agreement was signed. Therefore, the agreement did not embody the settlement of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; high court order set aside; matter remitted to regional court to finalise maintenance for respondent and any dependent child.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The appeal is dismissed with costs.'