In Manelis v Manelis (Case No. 1235/22) [2025] ZASCA 55, the Supreme Court of Appeal considered the legal effect of a commencement net value recorded in an antenuptial contract under the accrual system. The central issue was whether the respondent, Mr Constantinos Charles Manelis, owed accrual to the applicant, Mrs Dominique Camilla Manelis, upon divorce, or whether Mrs Manelis had a valid claim against her former husband’s estate.

The parties were married out of community of property subject to the accrual system. In their antenuptial contract, Mr Manelis declared a commencement net value of R68.7 million, while Mrs Manelis declared zero. Following their divorce, Mrs Manelis disputed the validity of this value, alleging it had been inflated and that she was entitled to a substantial accrual claim.

The Supreme Court of Appeal was required to determine whether a commencement value stipulated in an antenuptial contract serves as definitive evidence of a spouse’s estate value at the start of the marriage, binding the parties absolutely, or whether it operates only as prima facie evidence that may be challenged. In considering this, the court referred to sections 3(1), 4, 6(1) and 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. The applicant bore the burden of challenging the commencement value on grounds such as misrepresentation, error, or fraud, but failed to establish any such grounds.

The court held that statements of commencement value in an antenuptial contract are binding and constitute definitive evidence unless invalidated by fraud, error, or misrepresentation. It further clarified that section 6(3) applies to commencement value statements lodged separately under section 6(1), and not to values declared in antenuptial contracts. By the time of the divorce, Mr Manelis’s estate had diminished below the commencement value, with expert calculations showing it at approximately R117 million, meaning no accrual was possible. The applicant’s claim therefore failed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

This ruling emphasizes that an antenuptial contract is more than a formality: it is a binding contractual document carrying significant legal and financial consequences. Commencement values declared in such a contract are obligatory unless successfully challenged under common law contract principles. The judgment serves as a caution to couples to seek independent legal advice before entering into an antenuptial contract, as disputes over accrual can otherwise lead to lengthy and costly litigation.