NOTES

PVL 2601 - MJL

Table of Contents
Void, voidable, putative.....................................................................................................3
Summary....................................................................................................................................3
Cases..........................................................................................................................................4
Invariable consequence......................................................................................................6
Summary:...................................................................................................................................6
Cases..........................................................................................................................................7
Variable consequences.......................................................................................................9
Summary....................................................................................................................................9
### 6.4.2 Liabilities...................................................................................................................11
### 6.5 Administration of the Joint Estate........................................................................12
Cases........................................................................................................................................12
### 6.5.4 Acts for Which the Other Spouse’s Consent Is Unnecessary........................................14
### 6.5.5 Protective Measures in Respect of the Administration of the Joint Estate...................14
### 6.5.6 Capacity to Litigate....................................................................................................15
Cases........................................................................................................................................15
### 7.1.2 Formalities for a Valid Antenuptial Contract......................................................17
Accrual system.................................................................................................................19
Summary..................................................................................................................................19
### Applicable Sections of Law:................................................................................................20
Divorce.............................................................................................................................22
Summary..................................................................................................................................22
#### Case References:..............................................................................................................22
1. **Schwartz v Schwartz (1984)**:...........................................................................................................22
2. **Swart v Swart (1980)**:.....................................................................................................................22
3. **Coetzee v Coetzee (1991)**:..............................................................................................................22
4. **Levy v Levy**:....................................................................................................................................23
#### High probability of breakdown and Sec 5A of Divorce act.................................................................23
### Applicable Legal Provisions:................................................................................................................23

Patrimonial consequences of divorce................................................................................23

Cases:.......................................................................................................................................25
Void, voidable, putative
Summary
1. **Void Civil Marriages**:
- A void civil marriage is one that has never legally existed, as if the marriage never
occurred.
- Grounds for a marriage being void include non-compliance with formal or material
requirements, such as unauthorized solemnization, underage marriage without consent, or
absence of witnesses.
- Exceptions exist under the Marriage Act, like errors in marriage formalities done in good
faith or due to physical disability.
- Void marriages do not affect the status of the parties or confer any matrimonial benefits,
and parties are free to marry again.

2. **Voidable Civil Marriages**:

- A voidable marriage is legally valid until annulled by a court, due to conditions that
existed at the time of marriage.
- Grounds for annulment include minority (marriage of minors without necessary
consent), material mistake, duress, undue influence, stuprum (extramarital intercourse
before marriage leading to pregnancy), impotence, and sterility.
- If annulled, the marriage is considered never to have existed, but transactions with third
parties and the status of children born during the marriage are protected.

3. **Putative Marriages**:
- A putative marriage occurs when one or both parties enter into a marriage unaware of a
defect rendering it void, believing in good faith that the marriage is valid.
- The putative marriage has some legal consequences of a valid marriage as long as at
least one party is bona fide (acting in good faith).
- Children from a putative marriage are treated as being born from married parents, and
patrimonial consequences are similar to those of valid marriages, depending on the good
faith of the parties and the existence of an antenuptial contract.

4. **Consequences of Void and Voidable Marriages**:

- Void marriages result in no matrimonial property system, no duty of support, and no
inheritance rights between parties.
- Voidable marriages, once annulled, retroactively nullify all marriage consequences, but
protect the interests of third parties and children.
- Putative marriages, while void, offer some legal protections and benefits as long as the
good faith condition is met.

This comprehensive overview provides a detailed understanding of the legal intricacies and
implications of different types of civil marriages under South African law.
Cases

1. **Ex parte Dow** (1987): The court held that a civil marriage solemnized in a garden,
rather than in a church or other designated place, was not rendered void by this fact alone.
It emphasized that such irregularities, when committed in good faith, do not invalidate a
marriage.

2. **Snyman v Snyman** (1984): This case likely dealt with the consequences of a void
marriage, although specific details on the outcome are not readily available.

3. **Arendse v Roode** (1989): Similarly, this case addressed issues surrounding void civil
marriages, but specific details of the court's decision are not immediately accessible.

4. **Zulu v Zulu** (2008): The court found that a putative marriage, entered into in good
faith by at least one party, does not establish a joint estate in cases where one party is
already married in community of property. This decision clarified how assets are handled in
such complex marital situations.

5. **Ex parte Oxton** (1948): The court's decision in this case affirmed that declaring a
marriage void is a declaratory act, confirming an existing legal situation rather than changing
it.

6. **Gabergas v Gabergas** (1921): The specific outcome of this case is not readily
available, but it likely addressed the validity of a marriage in the context of extra-marital
affairs.

7. **Reyneke v Reyneke** (1927): The court in this case likely dealt with issues arising from
a wife’s pregnancy by another man and its impact on the validity of her marriage.

8. **Stander v Stander** (1929): This case would have involved the legal presumptions of
paternity in a marriage context, but the specific judicial ruling is not immediately accessible.

9. **Smith v Smith** (1936): The court considered a husband’s right to seek annulment of
his marriage due to his wife's prenuptial extramarital intercourse leading to pregnancy,
establishing grounds for annulment under certain conditions.

10. **Kilian v Kilian** (1908): The case likely revolved around the effects of acceptance or
condonation of certain facts in a marriage, affecting the right to annulment.

11. **Wells v Dean-Willcocks** (1924): The court found that impotence, if unknown to one
party at the time of marriage, can be a ground for annulment, especially if it is incurable or
permanent.

12. **Joshua v Joshua** (1961): This case similarly dealt with impotence as a ground for
annulment, emphasizing the importance of both parties being aware of such a condition
before marriage.
13. **B v B** (1964), **D v D** (1964): These cases further explored the issues of
impotence in marriage, particularly focusing on the conditions under which it affects the
validity of the marital union.

14. **W v W** (1959): The court allowed an annulment based on one spouse's pre-existing
and ongoing impotence, which was not known to the other spouse at the time of marriage.

15. **Venter v Venter** (1949): The court held that a spouse's fraudulent concealment of
their sterility could be grounds for annulment, as it constitutes a significant
misrepresentation.

16. **Van Niekerk v Van Niekerk** (1959): Differing from Venter, this case suggested that
mere sterility, even if not fraudulently concealed, might be grounds for annulling a marriage.

17. **Bam v Bhabha** (1947): The court discussed the concept of putative marriages,
emphasizing the good faith belief in the validity of the marriage as a crucial element.

18. **Ngubane v Ngubane** (1983): This case likely addressed the conditions and
implications of putative marriages, focusing on the necessity of formal marriage
solemnization.

19. **Solomons v Abrams** (1991), **Ramayee v Vandiyar** (1977): These cases

contributed to the legal understanding of putative marriages, particularly in terms of the
consequences and recognition of such unions.

20. **Moola v Aulsebrook** (1983): Similar to the above cases, this decision addressed the
legal recognition and implications of putative marriages.

21. **Prinsloo v Prinsloo** (1958), **M v M** (1962), **Vather v Seedat** (1974): These
cases dealt with the status of children born from putative marriages, focusing on the legal
rights and responsibilities arising from such unions.

22. **W v S** (1988): The court discussed the implications of parental responsibilities and
rights in the context of putative marriages.

23. **Engar and Engar v Desai

** (1966): This case focused on the court's role as the upper guardian in matters involving
children from putative marriages, particularly concerning parental responsibilities and rights.

24. **Potgieter v Bellingan** (1940): The decision involved the court's role as upper
guardian in protecting the interests of minors in the context of voidable marriages.

These cases collectively provide a detailed jurisprudential landscape of issues surrounding

civil marriages, including the validity of marriages, conditions for annulment, and
consequences of different types of marriages under South African law.
Invariable consequence
Summary:

**5.2 The Status of the Spouses**

1. **Monogamy and Affinity**: Once married, neither spouse can enter another civil,
customary marriage, or civil union. The marriage also creates new impediments to
subsequent marriages due to affinity.

2. **Intestate Succession Rights**: Spouses gain the right to inherit from each other if one
dies without a will.

3. **Children's Status**: Children born to the couple before the marriage are considered as
born to married parents post-marriage.

4. **Parental Responsibilities and Rights**: Full parental responsibilities and rights are
afforded to both spouses for children born during the marriage.

5. **Restricted Capacity in Community Property Marriages**: If married in community of

property, both spouses have restricted capacity to act in certain legal and financial aspects.

6. **Majority Status for Minor Spouses**: A minor who marries attains the status of a
majority (adult) through marriage.

**5.3 Consortium Omnis Vitae**

This concept, though broad and somewhat abstract, encompasses various rights, duties, and
advantages accruing from marriage, including companionship, love, affection, comfort,
mutual services, and sexual intercourse. Violations of the consortium, like adultery or
desertion, don't give rise to a delictual claim between spouses, and the primary remedy for
severe violations is divorce. Third-party infringements (like adultery) used to be actionable
but are no longer so following key court decisions. The right to family life, underpinned by
the right to dignity in the Constitution, includes the right to consortium.

**5.4 Spousal Maintenance**

1. **Reciprocal Duty**: Both spouses have a common-law duty to support each other
financially during the marriage, based on their means and needs. This duty extends to
necessary items for living but not necessarily to future maintenance.

2. **Liability for Household Necessaries**: Both spouses are jointly liable for household
necessities, a concept that extends beyond just the duty of support.

3. **Termination of Duty**: The duty of support ends with the dissolution of the marriage,
either by death or divorce, although post-divorce maintenance can be ordered.
4. **Maintenance Act Enforcements**: The Maintenance Act provides for the enforcement
of maintenance obligations, including civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance.

In summary, marriage in civil law significantly alters the legal status, responsibilities, and
rights of the spouses, impacting their personal relationships, parental duties, financial
obligations, and legal capacities. The law provides mechanisms for enforcing these duties,
especially regarding spousal and child maintenance.

Cases
From the provided text, the following case references are identified along with their
outcomes and factors considered by the court:

1. **Wiese v Moolman**: This case described the concept of "consortium omnis vitae" as a
broad and somewhat abstract concept, encompassing various elements of married life
including companionship, love, and affection. The court's discussion highlighted the non-
tangible aspects of marital relationships, recognizing their importance and complexity.

2. **Grobbelaar v Havenga**: The court in this case defined "consortium omnis vitae" as an
abstraction that includes numerous rights, duties, and advantages accruing to spouses in a
marriage. The judgment underscored the multifaceted nature of marital relationships,
encompassing both material and immaterial aspects.

3. **Peter v Minister of Law and Order**: This case used the term "consortium" to
represent all legal rights of one spouse to the company, affection, services, and support of
the other. The ruling here emphasized the comprehensive nature of marital rights and
obligations.

4. **Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs; Shalabi v Minister of Home Affairs; Thomas v

Minister of Home Affairs**: This landmark ruling by the Constitutional Court recognized that
the right to dignity encompasses the rights of individuals to enter into and sustain
permanent intimate relationships, thereby implicitly protecting the right to family life. The
court’s judgment acknowledged the intrinsic connection between dignity and personal
relationships, particularly in the context of marriage and family life.

5. **Booysen v Minister of Home Affairs**: Extending the principles from the "Dawood"
case, the Constitutional Court in this case applied its decision to other sections of the Aliens
Control Act, emphasizing the right to dignity of South Africans and their foreign spouses. The
ruling underscored the importance of respecting the dignity and rights of individuals in
marital relationships, especially in the context of immigration laws.

6. **Reyneke v Reyneke**: This case dealt with the issue of spousal maintenance and the
ability to provide it. The husband, in this case, had deliberately impoverished himself to
avoid maintenance obligations. The court found that the husband's fraudulent conduct did
not oblige him to pay maintenance he couldn't afford, emphasizing the principle that
maintenance obligations are contingent on the ability to pay.
7. **PT v LT** and **JM v LM**: These conflicting judgments from the Western Cape
Division of the High Court dealt with the enforcement of maintenance orders. The former
suggested that civil enforcement must occur under the Maintenance Act, while the latter
supported the notion that maintenance orders from the High Court could be enforced either
through the High Court or the Maintenance Court.

8. **Thomson v Thomson**: This case, similar to "JM v LM", held that the Maintenance Act
does not preclude parties from seeking enforcement of High Court maintenance orders
through the High Court, affirming the court's authority in maintenance matters.

9. **Mngadi v Beacon Sweets & Chocolates Provident Fund**: The High Court, recognizing
its constitutional duty to protect children's best interests, ordered a provident fund to retain
benefits for future child maintenance payments. The court's decision reflected the judiciary's
commitment to ensuring the welfare of children in maintenance disputes.

10. **Magewu v Zozo** and **Burger v Burger**: In these cases, the High Court made
orders concerning the attachment of retirement and pension benefits for future child
maintenance, illustrating the court's proactive stance in securing children's financial support.

11. **Gerber v Gerber and Pocock**: The court in this case ordered the attachment and
retention of proceeds from the sale of property to secure child maintenance, demonstrating
the judiciary's willingness to use various legal mechanisms to enforce maintenance
obligations.

12. **Soller v Maintenance Magistrate, Wynberg**: This ruling affirmed the Maintenance
Court's ability to make orders beyond the Maintenance Act's scope, especially in protecting
children's interests, reinforcing the constitutional mandate to prioritize children's welfare.

13. **Bannatyne v Bannatyne (Commission for Gender Equality, as Amicus Curiae)**: The
Constitutional Court in this case supported the enforcement of maintenance orders through
contempt proceedings in the High Court, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling
maintenance obligations.
Variable consequences
Summary

**6.2 Cases in Which Community of Property Does Not Arise**

1. **Existence of a Valid Antenuptial Contract**: If there's a valid antenuptial contract that

excludes community of property and community of profit and loss, the presumption of
community of property is rebutted.

2. **Valid Postnuptial Notarial Contract**: Similar exclusion as above, but agreed upon after
the marriage.

3. **Husband's Lex Domicilii**: If the husband’s lex domicilii (law of domicile) at the time of
marriage dictates marriage out of community of property, then the marriage will be out of
community unless an antenuptial contract choosing community of property is entered into.

4. **Civil Marriages under Section 22(6) of the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927**: For
African persons who married before December 2, 1988, marriages are out of community of
property unless a declaration for community of property was made.

**6.3 Nature of Universal Community of Property**

Universal community of property involves co-ownership by spouses in all assets and

liabilities, both acquired before and during the marriage. Upon dissolution of the marriage,
liabilities are settled, and the remaining joint estate is distributed equally.

**6.4 Content of Universal Community of Property**

1. **Assets Included**: Upon entering a community of property marriage, all assets owned
by either spouse become part of the joint estate.

2. **Exclusions and Exceptions**:

- **Antenuptial Contract Exclusions**: Specific assets excluded in an antenuptial contract
remain separate.
- **Exclusions by Will or Donation**: Assets bequeathed or donated under the condition
of exclusion from the joint estate are separate.
- **Fideicommissum or Usufruct**: Assets under these conditions are not part of the joint
estate, but their proceeds are.
- **Engagement Gifts (Jocalia)**: These do not become part of the joint estate.
- **Benefits under Friendly Societies Act**: Benefits due to a married woman under this
Act do not fall into the joint estate.
- **Non-Patrimonial Damages**: Amounts recovered for non-patrimonial damages are
separate property.
- **Personal Injury Damages**: Damages awarded for injuries caused by a spouse are
separate property.
 - **Costs in Matrimonial Action**: Any costs awarded in such actions are separate.
- **Prevention of Organised Crime Act Forfeitures**: Proceeds excluded by court under
this Act are separate.

3. **Attachment of Separate Assets**:

- **Du Plessis v Pienaar**: Creditors can claim against the joint estate for joint debts, and
separate assets can be attached in case of insolvency. The exclusion of assets operates only
between spouses, not against creditors.

Cases:

From the provided text, here are the case references along with their outcomes and the
factors considered:

1. **Frankel’s Estate v The Master** (1950): This case determined that the matrimonial
property system is governed by the husband’s lex domicilii at the time of the wedding. If the
husband was domiciled in a country where marriage is automatically out of community of
property and no antenuptial contract is made, the marriage would be out of community of
property in South Africa.

2. **Sperling v Sperling** (1975): This case likely dealt with matrimonial property issues and
the application of lex domicilii, similar to "Frankel’s Estate v The Master".

3. **Bell v Bell** (1991): Similar to the above cases, this case also likely addressed
matrimonial property regimes and the influence of the husband's lex domicilii.

4. **Brummund v Brummund’s Estate** (1993): This case likely focused on the impact of the
lex domicilii on the matrimonial property system, particularly in the context of South African
law.

5. **Estate Sayle v Commissioner for Inland Revenue** (1945), **De Wet v Jurgens**
(1970), and **Mazibuko v National Director of Public Prosecutions** (2009): These cases
confirmed the generally accepted view that universal community of property entails co-
ownership by spouses of all assets and liabilities, both acquired before and during the
marriage. The cases emphasized that spouses' separate estates are merged into a joint
estate upon marriage and equally distributed upon its dissolution.

6. **Persad v Persad** (1989), **Toho v Diepmeadow City Council** (1993), and **Moremi
v Moremi** (2000): These cases likely dealt with issues related to the inclusion of assets
acquired after marriage in the joint estate, emphasizing the automatic nature of this
inclusion.

7. **Hees v Southern Life Association Ltd** (2000) and **Danielz v De Wet** (2009): These
cases focused on the treatment of life insurance policies within the joint estate, specifically
addressing the issue of policy proceeds prior to maturity or the insured’s death or disability.
8. **Pieterse v Shrosbee; Shrosbee v Love** (2006) and **PPS Insurance Company Ltd v
Mkhabela** (2012): These cases probably addressed the treatment of life insurance policy
proceeds in the context of a joint estate, especially considering beneficiaries' rights and the
timing of policy maturation.

9. **Van der Merwe v Van Wyk** (1921), **Barnett v Rudman** (1934), **Van Wyk v
Groch** (1968), and **Roux v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk** (1977): These cases
likely discussed the treatment of property subject to a fideicommissum or usufruct within
the joint estate, specifically focusing on the inclusion of fruits or proceeds derived from such
property.

10. **Reddy v Chinasamy** (1932), **Barkhan v Barkhan** (1960), **Levin v Levin**

(1960): These cases addressed the issue of jocalia (engagement gifts) and whether they
become part of the joint estate. The rulings varied, with some decisions incorrectly
concluding that such gifts fall into the joint estate.

11. **Du Plessis v Pienaar** (2002): The Supreme Court of Appeal clarified that creditors
can claim against the joint estate for joint debts and that separate assets can be attached in
the case of insolvency, regardless of whether they were excluded from the joint estate.

12. **Van den Berg v Van den Berg** (2003): This case determined that non-patrimonial
damages received by a spouse, even if paid under an insurance policy, are considered as
separate property due to their delictual nature.

### 6.4.2 Liabilities

#### General
- **Community of Liabilities**: In marriages in community of property, there's a community
of liabilities along with assets. This includes both debts before the marriage (antenuptial
debts) and those incurred during the marriage.
- **Joint vs Separate Debtors**: Historically, there was ambiguity about whether spouses
are joint debtors or separate debtors for joint debts. Recent views by the Supreme Court of
Appeal favor the notion that spouses are joint debtors.
- **Suretyship**: A spouse in a community of property marriage cannot stand surety for the
other's debts, as they are inherently joint debts.

#### Antenuptial Debts

- **Joint Debts Upon Marriage**: Antenuptial debts of both spouses become joint debts
upon entering a marriage in community of property, which includes maintenance obligations
towards family and children from previous relationships.
- **Uncertainty for Delictual Debts**: It's unclear whether antenuptial delictual debts are
included. If they are, they're first recoverable from the delict-committing spouse's separate
property, then the joint estate, with adjustments made upon the estate's division.

#### Debts During Marriage

- **Contractual Debts**: Whether a debt incurred during marriage is recovered from the
joint estate depends on whether the incurring spouse had the capacity to bind the joint
estate.
- **Delictual Debts**: Governed by Section 19 of the Matrimonial Property Act, damages
are first recoverable from the delict-committing spouse's separate property, then from the
joint estate.

#### Other Separate Debts

- Legal clarity is needed on how separate debts like criminal fines or maintenance obligations
are treated. They might follow the same route as delictual debts.

#### Outstanding Debts at Dissolution

- **Contractual Debts**: The original debtor is liable for unpaid antenuptial contractual
debts post-dissolution, with potential recourse for half the debt.
- **Delictual and Other Separate Debts**: Only the original debtor is liable for these debts
post-dissolution.

### 6.5 Administration of the Joint Estate

#### Abolition of Marital Power

- **Equal Administration**: The Matrimonial Property Act abolished marital power,
replacing it with a system of equal administration of the joint estate.
- **Application Across Marriages**: Initially, the abolition applied to marriages entered after
the commencement of the Act, with provisions for earlier marriages to adopt it. Later, it was
universally applied to all civil marriages.

#### Principle of Equal Administration

- **Equal Powers**: Both spouses have equal powers to administer the joint estate and
incur debts binding the estate.
- **Balance Between Autonomy and Protection**: While each spouse can perform most
acts independently, consent of both is required for significant transactions to protect mutual
interests.

#### Acts Requiring Consent

- **Various Consent Requirements**: The Matrimonial Property Act specifies different types
of consent (written, attested, oral, tacit) for different transactions.
- **Significant Transactions**: Transactions like alienating immovable property, suretyship,
or withdrawing funds from accounts require different forms of spousal consent.

Cases
Certainly! Here's a comprehensive overview of the significant case references mentioned,
including the outcomes and their impacts on the law:

### 1. **De Wet v Jurgens** [1970 (3) SA 38 (A)]

- **Outcome**: This case dealt with the nature of liability for joint debts in a community
of property marriage. The court found that the spouses are joint debtors.
 - **Impact**: This ruling clarified the joint responsibility of spouses for debts incurred
during the marriage, influencing subsequent interpretations of joint debt liability.

### 2. **Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Roux** [1978 (2) SA 856 (A)]

- **Outcome**: Contradicted De Wet v Jurgens by holding that spouses remain separate
debtors for debts that have to be paid from the joint estate.
- **Impact**: This case introduced a level of ambiguity regarding the exact nature of
spousal liability for debts, necessitating further clarification in later cases.

### 3. **Nedbank Ltd v Van Zyl** [1990 (2) SA 469 (A)]

- **Outcome**: The court favored the view that spouses are joint debtors. It also
established that one spouse cannot stand surety for the other spouse’s debts because they
are inherently joint debts.
- **Impact**: This case resolved some of the ambiguity from earlier rulings by affirming
the concept of joint debt in community of property marriages and set a precedent on the
limitation of standing surety between spouses.

### 4. **Du Plessis v Pienaar** [[2002] 4 All SA 311 (SCA), 2003 (1) SA 671 (SCA)]
- **Outcome**: The court reaffirmed the joint debt position and clarified that excluding an
asset from the joint estate does not protect it in case of insolvency.
- **Impact**: This case has implications for asset protection and debt liability in
community of property marriages, especially regarding the treatment of separate assets in
insolvency cases.
Bona fide third parties are protected.

### 5. **Gugu v Zongwana** [[2014] 1 All SA 203 (ECM)]

- **Outcome**: Addressed the issue of costs in a matrimonial action, finding they do not
fall into the joint estate if the marriage is not dissolved.
- **Impact**: This case provided clarity on the handling of legal costs in matrimonial
disputes, particularly when the marriage remains intact.

### 6. **BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Viljoen** [2002 (5) SA 630 (O)]
- **Outcome**: Explored the liability of spouses for debts incurred during marriage,
particularly in relation to contractual debts.
- **Impact**: This case further solidified understanding of how debts incurred during the
marriage are treated upon its dissolution.

### 7. **Mazibuko v National Director of Public Prosecutions** [2009 (6) SA 479 (SCA)]
- **Outcome**: Discussed the forfeiture of property involved in criminal activities,
especially in the context of a community of property marriage.
- **Impact**: This case had implications for how property acquired through criminal
means within a community of property marriage is treated, including the rights of an
‘innocent’ spouse.

### 8. **Pinnacle Point Casino (Pty) Ltd v Auret** [[1999] 2 All SA 491 (C)]
- **Outcome**: Addressed the issue of contracts for the alienation of immovable property
concluded without required spousal consent.
 - **Impact**: This case contributed to the understanding of the role of spousal consent in
transactions involving immovable property.

### 6.5.4 Acts for Which the Other Spouse’s Consent Is Unnecessary

Under South African matrimonial law, certain juristic acts do not require the consent of the
other spouse, even in marriages governed by community of property.

#### Transactions Exempt from Consent in Regular Business:

Section 15(6) of the Matrimonial Property Act stipulates that for specific transactions, no
spousal consent is needed if they are conducted in the regular course of a spouse's
profession, trade, or business. These include:
1. **Alienating Immovable Property**: Contracts to alienate immovable property can be
concluded without spousal consent.
2. **Receiving Credit**: Receiving credit under credit agreements, as defined in the National
Credit Act, does not require consent.
3. **Alienating Shares and Purchasing Land**: Transactions involving shares, purchasing
land, and suretyship agreements are included.
4. **Instituting or Defending Legal Proceedings**: This can be done independently by a
spouse in their professional capacity.

#### Case Law Interpretation:

- **Strydom v Engen Petroleum Ltd**: The Supreme Court of Appeal clarified that Section
15(6) is a proviso to the consent requirement in Section 15(2). The burden of proof lies on
the person disputing the transaction's alignment with ordinary business activities.
- **Amalgamated Banks of South Africa Bpk v De Goede**: Highlighted leniency in
interpreting "ordinary course of business", where suretyships by individuals with minimal
involvement in business were still deemed as conducted in the ordinary course of business.
- **Tesouriero v Bhyjo Investments Share Block (Pty) Ltd**: Supported the view that signing
suretyship in relation to business premises leasing is part of ordinary business activities.

#### Additional Exemptions:

Section 15(7) exempts stock exchange transactions concerning listed securities and
transactions concerning deposits at a banking institution in the name of the spouse who
wishes to deal with the deposit.

### 6.5.5 Protective Measures in Respect of the Administration of the Joint Estate

#### Protection of Third Parties:

- **Section 15(9)(a)**: Protects third parties who engage in transactions without knowing
the lack of spousal consent. If unaware, the transaction is considered valid.
- **Case Law**: Distillers Corporation Ltd v Modise and Visser v Hull demonstrate different
approaches to establishing third-party awareness.

#### Protection of Spouses:

- **Statutory Right to Adjustment**: Upon dissolution of the joint estate, an adjustment can
be made if one spouse's actions cause loss (Section 15(9)(b)).
- **Dispensing with Consent**: Court can authorize transactions if consent is unreasonably
withheld (Section 16(1)).
- **Suspension of Powers**: A spouse’s power to deal with the joint estate can be
suspended for protection (Section 16(2)).
- **Immediate Division of Estate**: Can be sought under Section 20 if a spouse's conduct
severely prejudices the other’s interest.

#### Common-Law Remedies:

These include interdicts against fraudulent alienation, the actio Pauliana utilis for recovering
assets from third parties, recourse against a spouse upon dissolution, and declaring a spouse
a prodigal.

### 6.5.6 Capacity to Litigate

#### General Rules:

- **Written Consent Required**: For legal proceedings, unless they relate to a spouse’s
separate property, non-patrimonial damages for a delict committed against them, or their
profession, trade, or business (Section 17).
- **Exceptions**: Non-fulfillment of consent doesn’t invalidate proceedings, but courts may
make cost orders against the litigating spouse.

#### Specific Contexts:

- **Insolvency**: Actions related to the sequestration of a joint estate must involve both
spouses (Section 17(4)).
- **Suing for Joint Debts**: Legal actions for joint debts can be brought against either or
both spouses, depending on the nature of the debt (Section 17(5)).

This overview covers the key aspects of spousal consent, protective measures, and litigation
capacity within the framework of community property law in South Africa, as outlined in the
provided text.

Cases

1. **Strydom v Engen Petroleum Ltd**:

- **Overview**: This case dealt with the interpretation of Section 15(6) of the Matrimonial
Property Act, which exempts certain transactions from spousal consent if they are
performed in the ordinary course of a spouse's profession, trade, or business.
 - **Court Ruling**: The Supreme Court of Appeal clarified that Section 15(6) acts as a
proviso to the consent requirement in Section 15(2). The burden of proof lies on the
individual disputing the alignment of a transaction with ordinary business activities.
- **Impact**: This ruling emphasized the need to consider the context of a spouse’s
professional activities when assessing whether specific actions fall within the scope of
'ordinary business activities.' It underlines the importance of an objective evaluation in
determining the necessity of spousal consent.

2. **Amalgamated Banks of South Africa Bpk v De Goede**:

- **Overview**: The case addressed the concept of acting in the ordinary course of
business in relation to signing suretyships.
- **Court Ruling**: The Supreme Court of Appeal found that individuals with minimal
involvement in a business (in this case, a full-time teacher and a full-time clerk) who signed
deeds of suretyship were deemed to have acted in the ordinary course of their business.
- **Impact**: This judgment provided a broader interpretation of what constitutes actions
in the ordinary course of business, indicating leniency in this regard. It suggests that the
courts may consider the relationship of the act to the person’s broader professional and
business activities rather than focusing narrowly on their immediate professional roles.

3. **Tesouriero v Bhyjo Investments Share Block (Pty) Ltd**:

- **Overview**: This case considered whether signing a deed of suretyship in relation to
leasing business premises can be considered an act in the ordinary course of business.
- **Court Ruling**: The court held that signing such a suretyship, especially when the
individual is actively engaged in the business and owns a significant part of the business, falls
within the ordinary course of business.
- **Impact**: This decision supports a flexible approach in interpreting the scope of
‘ordinary business activities.’ It indicates that active engagement and significant interest in a
business can justify certain acts, like signing suretyships, as part of ordinary business
conduct.

4. **Distillers Corporation Ltd v Modise**:

- **Overview**: This case dealt with the protection of third parties in transactions where
spousal consent is required but not obtained.
- **Court Ruling**: The court used an objective test to determine if a third party could
reasonably know about the necessity of spousal consent. It was held that if a deed contains
a clause stating the signatory’s legal competence, a third party could reasonably rely on this
assertion.
- **Impact**: The ruling set a precedent for the level of due diligence expected of third
parties in transactions involving spouses married in community of property. It suggested that
explicit statements in contracts can be sufficient to establish the third party’s good faith.

5. **Visser v Hull**:
- **Overview**: This case examined the knowledge of third parties about the need for
spousal consent in property transactions.
- **Court Ruling**: The court held that third parties, especially those with close
relationships or knowledge of the family, should undertake adequate inquiries about marital
status and property regimes.
 - **Impact**: This ruling implies a higher standard of due diligence for third parties who
are close to or familiar with the spouses’ circumstances. It suggests that mere reliance on
one spouse’s assurances may not always be sufficient to establish good faith.

6. **Bopape v Moloto**:
- **Overview**: Addressed the recovery of assets transferred without necessary spousal
consent.
- **Court Ruling**: The court ordered the repayment of assets transferred in a manner
that contravened spousal consent requirements, establishing that assets fraudulently
alienated can be recovered from a third party.
- **Impact**: This decision reinforces the protection of the non-consenting spouse's rights
in the joint estate and clarifies that the third party’s knowledge of the marriage status plays
a crucial role in determining the validity of the transaction.

The provided text covers the formalities and implications related to the creation,
amendment, interpretation, and termination of antenuptial contracts in South African law.
Here's a comprehensive summary for your exam:

### 7.1.2 Formalities for a Valid Antenuptial Contract

#### a) General Requirements

- **Informal Contracts**: Only valid inter partes (between the parties themselves) and not
against third parties. Without registration, the marriage is deemed in community of property
regarding debtors and creditors.
- **Registration**: Mandatory as per section 86 of the Deeds Registries Act. If executed in
South Africa, it must be attested by a notary and registered within three months (or court-
extended period). If executed abroad, it must comply with local laws and be registered in
South Africa within six months.

#### b) Postnuptial Execution and Registration

- **Court Intervention**: The High Court can permit formal execution and registration post-
marriage under section 88 of the Deeds Registries Act.
- **Conditions**: Parties must have agreed on the contract terms pre-marriage, provide
valid reasons for not executing/registering pre-marriage, and make the application within a
reasonable time after discovering the oversight.
- **Effects**: Post-approval, the contract is as effective as if properly executed and
registered initially.

### 7.1.3 Antenuptial Contracts for Minors

- **Personal Signing**: The minor must personally sign the contract.
- **Guardian Consent**: Required from the minor's guardian. The Children’s Act requires
consent from all guardians for marriage but is silent on antenuptial contracts, implying any
guardian can provide consent.
- **Execution Assistance**: If needed, assistance is provided by the presiding officer of the
Children’s Court or a court-appointed curator.
- **Signing by Guardian**: Although practice demands it, there is no legal requirement for
the guardian to sign the antenuptial contract.

### 7.1.4 Contents of an Antenuptial Contract

- **General Rule**: Any provision is allowed if not impossible, immoral, illegal, or against
the nature of marriage.
- **Matrimonial Property System**: Usually excludes community of property, replacing it
with some form of property separation.
- **Household Necessaries**: Can include a right of recourse for contributions exceeding
pro rata share.
- **Succession Clauses**: Pacta successorium in antenuptial contracts are recognized,
allowing spouses to decide on estate devolution.
- **Marriage Settlements**: Donations made in the contract, often with reversion clauses.
- **Interpretation**: Follows standard contract interpretation principles.

### 7.1.6 Cancellation and Amendment

- **Pre-Marriage**: Can be canceled or amended anytime before the wedding.
- **Post-Marriage**: Generally not allowed, except for some specific situations like replacing
a marriage settlement or amending succession clauses.
- **Rectification by Court**: Possible if the contract does not accurately reflect the
agreement or intention.
- **Amendment by Court**: For significant reasons, especially related to trusts or marriage
settlements.

### 7.1.7 Termination

- **Non-Lapsing**: The contract doesn't automatically end upon dissolution of marriage. It
ends only after fulfilling all obligations.

This summary encompasses key aspects of antenuptial contracts under South African law,
including their formation, modification, and termination processes.
Accrual system
Summary

1. **Introduction to the Accrual System**: The accrual system aims to mitigate financial
disparities in marriages where one spouse may not be the primary breadwinner. This system
ensures that both spouses share in the growth of their respective estates, accrued during
the marriage.

2. **Application of the Accrual System**: By default, the accrual system applies to marriages
concluded out of community of property post-November 1, 1984, unless expressly excluded
in the antenuptial contract. The system also retroactively applies to certain marriages before
this date if a notarial contract is executed.

3. **Accrual Sharing Process**: Accrual sharing is akin to a postponed community of profit.

It maintains the individual estates during the marriage but ensures sharing of the growth
(accrual) of these estates upon dissolution of the marriage.

4. **The Accrual Claim**: The spouse with the smaller or no accrual can claim half the
difference between the accruals of both estates. This claim is factual and mathematical, not
discretionary.

5. **Accrual Claim vs. Right to Accrual Sharing**: The accrual claim arises upon the
dissolution of the marriage. However, the right to share in the accrual exists during the
marriage. This right is not transferable, attachable, or part of an insolvent estate.

6. **Accrual Calculation**: The accrual is determined by subtracting the net

commencement value (adjusted for inflation using the CPI) and the value of excluded assets
from the net end value of each spouse’s estate.

7. **Protection of Accrual Rights**: If one spouse's actions could significantly harm the
other's right to accrual, the court can order immediate division of the accrual, potentially
altering the matrimonial property system to complete separation of property.

8. **Satisfying the Accrual Claim**: Courts can defer the satisfaction of an accrual claim
under various conditions, such as installment payments or asset transfers, especially when
immediate payment can financially strain the liable spouse.

9. **Renouncing the Accrual Claim**: While solvent spouses can renounce their accrual
claim, insolvent spouses cannot legally do so to the detriment of their creditors, as such
renunciation could be set aside under insolvency law.

Cases
Here are the case references extracted from the text, along with the court rulings, outcomes,
and impacts of each case, as well as the relevant sections of law for your study:

### Case References:

1. **Edelstein v Edelstein (1952 (3) SA 1 (A))**: This case highlighted the financial
disadvantages faced by a non-breadwinning spouse in a marriage of complete separation of
property. The court's decision underscored the need for a more equitable system, which
influenced the development of the accrual system.

2. **Odendaal v Odendaal ([2002] 2 All SA 94 (W))**: This case confirmed that the statutory
accrual system applies to informal antenuptial contracts unless expressly excluded. It
emphasized the need for clarity in antenuptial contracts regarding the exclusion of the
accrual system.

3. **Le Roux v Le Roux ([2010] JOL 26003 (NCK))**: The court ruled that the accrual claim
can only be pursued after the dissolution of the marriage, necessitating separate actions for
divorce and accrual claims. This highlighted the procedural complexities in accrual system
claims.

4. **JA v DA (2014 (6) SA 233 (GJ))**: Similar to Le Roux v Le Roux, the court held that the
accrual can only be determined post-dissolution. However, it suggested that well-pleaded
prayers in divorce proceedings could integrate accrual claims, aiming to streamline the
process.

5. **MB v NB (2010 (3) SA 220 (GSJ))**: This case advocated for litis contestatio (the time of
joining issue in litigation) as the date for determining the value of each spouse's estate for
accrual calculations. This approach aimed to prevent asset squandering and ensure fairness.

6. **MGB v DEB ([2013] 4 All SA 99 (KZD), also reported as MB v DB 2013 (6) SA 86 (KZD))**:
The court upheld the litis contestatio approach for calculating accruals, emphasizing
practicality and cost-efficiency. This judgment further established the use of litis contestatio
in accrual system calculations.

7. **Schmitz v Schmitz ([2015] 3 All SA 85 (KZD))**: Reinforced the litis contestatio approach
for determining accrual values, underlining the importance of economic equity and fairness
in marital property disputes.

### Applicable Sections of Law:

### 1. **Section 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act**

- **Application**: This section applies the statutory accrual system to marriages out of
community of property and community of profit and loss, which were concluded after the
commencement of the Act (from November 1, 1984).
- **Exclusion**: The accrual system applies unless explicitly excluded in the couple’s
antenuptial contract. If complete separation of property is desired, both community of
property and the accrual system must be expressly excluded.

### 2. **Section 3(1) and (2) of the Matrimonial Property Act**

 - **Accrual Claim**: It establishes that upon the dissolution of the marriage, the spouse
whose estate shows a smaller accrual (or no accrual) has a claim against the other spouse’s
estate. This claim is equal to half of the difference in the accrual of their respective estates.
- **Non-Transferability**: During the marriage, this right to share in the accrual is not
transferable, cannot be attached, and doesn’t form part of an insolvent estate.

### 3. **Section 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Matrimonial Property Act**

- **Calculation of Accrual**: This section details the calculation of the accrual, defining it
as the amount by which the net value of a spouse’s estate at the dissolution of the marriage
exceeds its net value at the commencement of the marriage.
- **Adjustment for Inflation**: Adjustments for the change in the value of money are to be
made using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), providing a more accurate reflection of the
estate’s growth.

### 4. **Section 5(1) and (2) of the Matrimonial Property Act**

- **Excluded Assets**: Specifies assets excluded from the accrual, such as inheritances,
legacies, donations from third parties, and donations between spouses.
- **Proceeds and Substitutes**: The proceeds of these excluded assets and assets
acquired with these proceeds are also excluded from the accrual.

### 5. **Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act**

- **Declaration of Commencement Value**: Allows spouses to declare the net
commencement value of their estates either in the antenuptial contract or in a separate
statement within six months of the marriage.
- **Deemed Value**: If not declared, the commencement value is deemed to be nil, unless
proven otherwise.

### 6. **Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act**

- **Disclosure Requirement**: Imposes a reciprocal duty on spouses to provide each other
with full particulars of their estate values for the purpose of determining the accrual.

### 7. **Section 8 of the Matrimonial Property Act**

- **Immediate Division of Accrual**: Allows for the immediate division of the accrual if
one spouse's conduct seriously prejudices the other’s right to share in the accrual.
- **Conditions and Modifications**: The court can divide the accrual as it sees fit and may
change the matrimonial property regime as part of its order.

### 8. **Section 10 of the Matrimonial Property Act**

- **Deferral of Accrual Claim**: Permits a court, on application, to defer the satisfaction of
an accrual claim under conditions deemed just, including security provision, installment
payments, and the transfer of specific assets.
Divorce

Summary
### Summary of Grounds for Divorce and Case References in the Context of Divorce:

#### Grounds for Divorce:

1. **Irretrievable Breakdown of the Marriage**:
- Criteria:
1. The marriage relationship is no longer normal.
2. No reasonable prospect of restoring a normal marriage relationship.

2. **Mental Illness (Section 5 of the Divorce Act)**:

- Criteria:
1. Admitted as a patient under the Mental Health Act or detained.
2. Not unconditionally discharged for at least two years prior to the divorce action.
3. No reasonable prospect of a cure (evidenced by two psychiatrists).

3. **Continuous Unconsciousness (Section 5 of the Divorce Act)**:

- Criteria:
1. State of continuous unconsciousness due to physical disorder.
2. Unconscious for at least six months prior to the divorce action.
3. No reasonable prospect of regaining consciousness (evidenced by two doctors).

#### Case References:

1. **Schwartz v Schwartz (1984)**:
- Ruling: Emphasized the court’s approach in determining if a marriage has reached a state
of disintegration with no reasonable prospect of restoration.
- Outcome: The court considered the history of the relationship and the current attitude of
the parties to decide on divorce.
- Implication: Established that courts should consider both past events and present
attitudes in determining irretrievable breakdown.

2. **Swart v Swart (1980)**:

- Ruling: A marriage is considered broken down if one spouse no longer wishes to continue
with the marriage.
- Outcome: The formation of an intention to divorce is a subjective element; the court also
considers the reasons for the divorce.
- Implication: Highlighted the importance of considering both subjective intent and
objective reasons behind seeking a divorce.

3. **Coetzee v Coetzee (1991)**:

- Ruling: The plaintiff must prove a change in the pattern of the marriage to deduce a
breakdown.
- Outcome: Suggested that a marriage that was never happy cannot form the basis for
divorce under irretrievable breakdown.
 - Implication: Raised questions about the adequacy of the irretrievable breakdown ground
for marriages that have been unhappy from the start.

4. **Levy v Levy**:
- Ruling: The court has no discretion to refuse a decree of divorce if one of the grounds for
divorce has been proven.
- Outcome: Confirmed the view expressed in Schwartz v Schwartz.
- Implication: Clarified that the court’s role is not to exercise discretion but to ascertain
whether the statutory grounds for divorce have been met.

#### High probability of breakdown and Sec 5A of Divorce act

- Section 4(2) of the Divorce Act outlines specific instances that might indicate a high
probability of an irretrievable breakdown.
1. Not together in home for at least one year
2. Adultery and cannot reconcile
3. Declared Habitual criminal
- Section 5A of the Divorce Act allows the court to refuse divorce in certain religious
contexts.
1. Section 5A of the Divorce Act allows the court to consider the religious implications
of a divorce. Specifically, it gives the court the discretion to refuse to grant a decree
of divorce, or to make any other order it deems just, in cases where, even after the
granting of a divorce, the spouses, or one of them, will not be free to remarry
according to the prescripts of their religion, unless the marriage is also dissolved in
accordance with those prescripts.

### Applicable Legal Provisions:

- **Divorce Act 70 of 1979**: Sections 3, 4, 5, 5A.
- **Mental Health Act 18 of 1973** / **Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002**: For cases
related to mental illness.

Patrimonial consequences of divorce

- **Sections 6-10, Divorce Act**:
- Focus on division of assets, spousal maintenance, children's interests, and legal costs post-
divorce.

- **Settlement Agreements (Practice)**:

- Common to use settlement agreements for divorce consequences.
- Includes provisions for asset division, maintenance, parental responsibilities, rights, and
costs.
- Must be lawful and not against public policy or moral principles.
- Can deviate from standard matrimonial property system.

- **Section 7(1), Divorce Act**:

- Courts can order asset division and maintenance as per written settlement agreements.
- Court holds discretion; can accept, reject, or modify parts of the agreement.
 - Agreements can be incorporated into the divorce order, enabling legal enforcement.

- **Asset Division Post-Divorce**:

- Depends on matrimonial property regime and applicability of the accrual system.
- Misconduct can impact decisions on forfeiture and maintenance.
- Court orders for forfeiture of benefits or asset redistribution may influence division.

### Forfeiture of Benefits:

1. **Legal Foundation**:
- **Section**: Primarily governed by Section 9 of the Divorce Act.
- **Purpose**: To equitably adjust the financial consequences of divorce, especially
when one spouse is disproportionately advantaged or disadvantaged by the
dissolution of the marriage.

2. **Application Criteria**:
- **Fault Consideration**: While divorce itself does not consider fault, the court
may consider it when deciding on forfeiture of benefits.
- **Duration of Marriage**: Generally more relevant in shorter marriages where
the accrual of assets has been significantly influenced by the marriage.
- **Financial Contribution**: The extent to which each spouse has contributed to
the joint estate.

3. **Implications**:
- **Outcome**: One spouse may be ordered to forfeit their benefits in the joint
estate or from the marriage, such as a share in property or other assets.
- **Equity Focus**: The order aims to prevent undue enrichment of one spouse at
the expense of the other.

### Asset Redistribution:

1. **Legal Context**:
- **Section**: This is more a judicial practice than a specific section in the Divorce
Act.
- **Purpose**: To achieve a fair division of assets, especially in cases where the
marriage regime (like out of community of property without accrual) would lead to
an unfair result.

2. **Determining Factors**:
- **Contribution to the Marriage**: Both financial and non-financial contributions
are considered.
- **Economic Disparity**: If one spouse is left economically disadvantaged, the
court may consider redistribution.
- **Future Needs**: Consideration of each party's future financial needs post-
divorce.

3. **Implications**:
 - **Asset Allocation**: The court may order certain assets to be transferred from
one spouse to another to ensure a fair settlement.
- **Variation from Standard Division**: This can override standard asset division
rules, especially in marriages out of community of property.

### Overall Impact on Divorce Proceedings:

- **Strategic Considerations**: Parties and their legal counsel must consider the
potential for these orders when negotiating settlements.
- **Protection of Vulnerable Spouses**: Ensures that economically weaker spouses
are not unduly prejudiced by the divorce.
- **Case-by-Case Basis**: Decisions are highly dependent on the unique
circumstances of each divorce case, reflecting the court's commitment to equity and
fairness.

- **Pension Interests (Section 7(7)(a), Divorce Act)**:

- Deemed as assets in divorce.
- For pension fund members: Benefits calculated as if resigned on divorce date.
- For retirement annuity fund members: Contributions plus interest.
- Amount reduced by any portion awarded to previous spouses.
- Distinction between pension interest and benefit is crucial; only interest is included under
Section 7(7) and (8).

Cases:

1. **Kotze v Kotze (2003)**

- **Ruling & Outcome**: The court refused to sanction a clause in a settlement agreement
where parents agreed to educate their child in a specific church and participate fully in its
activities, citing violation of the child's right to freedom of religion.
- **Impact**: This case underscores the importance of considering children's
constitutional rights in divorce settlements.
- **Relevant Law Sections**: Section 7(1) of the Divorce Act, Section 15(1) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

2. **PL v YL (2013)**
- **Ruling & Outcome**: The court added that a settlement agreement in a divorce must
not violate a fundamental right and should align with public policy.
- **Impact**: It established the necessity for divorce agreements to adhere to
constitutional principles and public policy.
- **Relevant Law Sections**: Section 7(1) of the Divorce Act.

3. **Maharaj v Maharaj (2002)**

- **Ruling & Outcome**: The court held that the value of the pension interest is
automatically included for determining the proprietary consequences of the divorce, even if
not expressly mentioned in the divorce order.
- **Impact**: Clarified the automatic inclusion of pension interests in the asset division
during a divorce.
 - **Relevant Law Sections**: Section 7(7)(a) of the Divorce Act.

4. **Fritz v Fundsatwork Umbrella Pension Fund (2013)**

- **Ruling & Outcome**: Held that a pension interest must be deemed part of the joint
estate in a divorce, regardless of whether the divorce order expressly mentions it.
- **Impact**: Emphasized the importance of pension interests in asset division in divorce
cases.
- **Relevant Law Sections**: Section 7(7)(a) of the Divorce Act.

5. **Macallister v Macallister (2013)**

- **Ruling & Outcome**: Similar to Fritz v Fundsatwork, reinforced the inclusion of
pension interests in the joint estate.
- **Impact**: Further clarification on pension interests in asset division.
- **Relevant Law Sections**: Section 7(7)(a) of the Divorce Act.

6. **Motsetse v Motsetse (2015)**

- **Ruling & Outcome**: Supported the principle that pension interests are part of the
joint estate in divorce.
- **Impact**: Reinforced the legal understanding of pension interests in marital asset
division.
- **Relevant Law Sections**: Section 7(7)(a) of the Divorce Act.

7. **Sempapalele v Sempapalele (2001)**

- **Ruling & Outcome**: Held that pension interests must be dealt with expressly at the
time of the divorce and are not automatically part of the joint estate.
- **Impact**: Provided a differing viewpoint on the treatment of pension interests in
divorce.
- **Relevant Law Sections**: Section 7(7)(a) of the Divorce Act.

8. **ML v JL (2013)**
- **Ruling & Outcome**: Cast doubt on whether pension interests automatically fall into
the joint estate.
- **Impact**: Added to the debate on how pension interests should be treated in divorce
asset division.
- **Relevant Law Sections**: Section 7(7)(a) of the Divorce Act.

9. **Eskom Pension and Provident Fund v Krugel (2012)**

- **Ruling & Outcome**: Clarified that Section 7(7) and (8) of the Divorce Act relates only
to a pension interest, not to a pension benefit.
- **Impact**: Distinguished between pension interests and benefits in divorce
proceedings.
- **Relevant Law Sections**: Section 7(7) and (8) of the Divorce Act.

These cases and legal sections should be pertinent to your study of the patrimonial
consequences of divorce in South African law.