N.H.M v H.M.M (A193/2017; 62488/ 2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1108 (13 September 2019)

N.H.M v H.M.M (A193/2017; 62488/ 2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1108 (13 September 2019)

The court held that the antenuptial contract, which records a nil commencement value for both parties, is binding and conclusive. There was no evidence of a common mistake or any grounds for rectification. Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act does not permit a party to present evidence of a different commencement value where one has already been declared in the contract and registered. The appellant is therefore bound to the nil value and cannot amend it by leading further evidence. Regarding forfeiture, the court found that both parties contributed to the breakdown of the marriage and neither party's conduct justified a forfeiture order. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 1108
Parties
Appellant: N[....] H[....] M[....]; Respondent: H[....] M[....] M[....]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Case Number
A193/2017; 62488/ 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Divorce Order and Proprietary Claims
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Holland-Muter, Molopa-Sethosa, Tlhapi
Legal Topics
Accrual System, Antenuptial Contract, Rectification of Contract, Forfeiture of Benefits, Divorce Act, Matrimonial Property Act
Family and Children Civil Procedure Accrual System Antenuptial Contract Rectification of Contract Forfeiture of Benefits Divorce Act Matrimonial Property Act

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N[....] H[....] M[....]

Appellant

H[....] M[....] M[....]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Divorce Order and Proprietary Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party may present evidence of a net commencement value of an estate different from that recorded in the antenuptial contract.
  2. 2 Whether rectification of the antenuptial contract is competent in the absence of a common mistake.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should forfeit any right to accrual in terms of section 9 of the Divorce Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the antenuptial contract, which records a nil commencement value for both parties, is binding and conclusive. There was no evidence of a common mistake or any grounds for rectification. Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act does not permit a party to present evidence of a different commencement value where one has already been declared in the contract and registered. The appellant is therefore bound to the nil value and cannot amend it by leading further evidence. Regarding forfeiture, the court found that both parties contributed to the breakdown of the marriage and neither party's conduct justified a forfeiture order. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.
  • The appellant is bound to the nil commencement value recorded in the antenuptial contract.