The Divorce Act and marriage out of community of property without accrual

In this article, we explore the issue of the constitutional validity of section 7(3)(1) of the Divorce Act in respect of marriages entered into after 1 November 1984 and excluding the accrual system.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Units

In May 2022, the High Court of South Africa Gauteng Division, Pretoria, declared that the wording of Section 7(3)(a) of the Divorce Act, 70 of 1979 (the Act) was inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid in the matter between Greyling v Minister of Home Affairs and others. 

The application by the plaintiff concerns the constitutional validity of section 7(3)(a) with regards to the restriction of the remedy provided to marriages out of community of property with the exclusion of the accrual system that were entered into after 1 November 1984. Currently, courts do not have any power to exercise the discretion provided in section 7(3) in respect of such marriages.  

Section 7(3) of the Act provides the court granting a decree of divorce in respect of a marriage out of community of property concluded before 1 November 1984 with a discretion to make a redistribution order to the effect that any asset, or sum of money, may be transferred from one spouse to another, subject to the provision of section 7(4), (5) and (6). This remedy is unavailable for marriages entered into after 1 November 1984. 

The relief sought by the plaintiff has been referred to the South African Law Research Commission before – it formed part of matters approved by the Minister of Home Affairs for investigation, which could lead to a possible amendment of the Act.  At the time of the hearing, the commission had not finalised its investigation. However, there are comments both in favour of and opposing the proposal that the court’s discretion includes marriages entered into after 1 November 1984. 

The court explained that the requested amendment to section 7(3) of the Act is not aimed to change the matrimonial property regiment which the parties agreed to, but to provide relief in certain restricted instances to spouses who contributed (directly or indirectly) to the maintenance or increase of the estate of the other spouse. It reiterated that the Act currently has three prerequisites that must be satisfied before an order can be granted in terms of Section 7(3)(a): 

  1. The marriage must have been entered into before the Matrimonial Property Act came into operation on 1 November 1984.
  2. The absence of any agreement between the parties regarding the division of their estates, where applicable.
  3. Proof of contribution directly or indirectly to the maintenance or increase of the other spouse’s estate during the course of the marriage – either by rendering services or by saving costs that would otherwise have been incurred.

After careful consideration, the court declared that the inclusion of the words “entered into before the commencement of the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984” in section 7(3)(a) of the Act is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.  

The court further confirmed that this order “shall not affect the legal consequences of any act done or omission or fact existing in relation to a marriage out of community of property with the exclusion of the accrual system concluded after 1 November 1984, before this order was made.”  

The orders by the High Court will be referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation in terms of the Constitution, 1996.

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.

Recommended for you

Transfer and Bond Calculators
Legislative Guidelines

The Financial Intelligence Centre Act of 2001 and Cash Threshold Reporting[post_view before=""]

When does the reporting obligation arise for an accountable or reporting institution?

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

The advantages of a life right[post_view before=""]

The Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Act 65 of 1988 introduced life rights as a formal form of ownership for retired people in South Africa. This legislation was implemented not only in response to the growth in the retirement village sector but also to provide legal protection to the elderly.

Read More
My name has changed - what happens to my property’s title deed?
Legislative Guidelines

Muslim marriages: A welcome Constitutional Court decision[post_view before=""]

In a long-awaited and groundbreaking decision in the area of family law, the Constitutional Court of South Africa (CC) confirmed the order of constitutional invalidity of the below mentioned Acts, granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal. This decision was confirmed on 28 June 2022.

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

Selling a property without approved building plans[post_view before=""]

It’s often the case that a seller would like to sell – and a purchaser would like to buy – a property without approved building plans or an occupation certificate. But what does the law say?  In terms of the…

Read More
Amendments to the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA)
Legislative Guidelines

The Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Report 2022[post_view before=""]

In March 2022, the Financial Intelligence Center (FIC) published a report dealing with the assessment of the inherent money laundering and terrorist financing (MLTF) risks for legal practitioners.

Read More

Need more Snymans content?

Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

The Divorce Act and marriage out of community of property without accrual

In this article, we explore the issue of the constitutional validity of section 7(3)(1) of the Divorce Act in respect of marriages entered into after 1 November 1984 and excluding the accrual system.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Units

In May 2022, the High Court of South Africa Gauteng Division, Pretoria, declared that the wording of Section 7(3)(a) of the Divorce Act, 70 of 1979 (the Act) was inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid in the matter between Greyling v Minister of Home Affairs and others. 

The application by the plaintiff concerns the constitutional validity of section 7(3)(a) with regards to the restriction of the remedy provided to marriages out of community of property with the exclusion of the accrual system that were entered into after 1 November 1984. Currently, courts do not have any power to exercise the discretion provided in section 7(3) in respect of such marriages.  

Section 7(3) of the Act provides the court granting a decree of divorce in respect of a marriage out of community of property concluded before 1 November 1984 with a discretion to make a redistribution order to the effect that any asset, or sum of money, may be transferred from one spouse to another, subject to the provision of section 7(4), (5) and (6). This remedy is unavailable for marriages entered into after 1 November 1984. 

The relief sought by the plaintiff has been referred to the South African Law Research Commission before – it formed part of matters approved by the Minister of Home Affairs for investigation, which could lead to a possible amendment of the Act.  At the time of the hearing, the commission had not finalised its investigation. However, there are comments both in favour of and opposing the proposal that the court’s discretion includes marriages entered into after 1 November 1984. 

The court explained that the requested amendment to section 7(3) of the Act is not aimed to change the matrimonial property regiment which the parties agreed to, but to provide relief in certain restricted instances to spouses who contributed (directly or indirectly) to the maintenance or increase of the estate of the other spouse. It reiterated that the Act currently has three prerequisites that must be satisfied before an order can be granted in terms of Section 7(3)(a): 

  1. The marriage must have been entered into before the Matrimonial Property Act came into operation on 1 November 1984.
  2. The absence of any agreement between the parties regarding the division of their estates, where applicable.
  3. Proof of contribution directly or indirectly to the maintenance or increase of the other spouse’s estate during the course of the marriage – either by rendering services or by saving costs that would otherwise have been incurred.

After careful consideration, the court declared that the inclusion of the words “entered into before the commencement of the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984” in section 7(3)(a) of the Act is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.  

The court further confirmed that this order “shall not affect the legal consequences of any act done or omission or fact existing in relation to a marriage out of community of property with the exclusion of the accrual system concluded after 1 November 1984, before this order was made.”  

The orders by the High Court will be referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation in terms of the Constitution, 1996.

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.