SCA Ruling: Commencement Values in Antenuptial Contracts

On 9 May 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) handed down a landmark judgment in DCM v CCM [2025] ZASCA 55 (“DCM v CCM”), settling long-standing uncertainty surrounding the treatment of commencement values in antenuptial contracts under South African law.

Commencement values describe the net worth of each spouse at the beginning of a marriage concluded under an antenuptial contract subject to the accrual system. This value establishes the financial starting point of each spouse’s estate and determines how accrual is calculated if the marriage ends. At the dissolution of the marriage, when the growth of the estates is calculated, these values are inflation-adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index.

The dispute before the SCA arose from a marriage concluded out of community of property, subject to the accrual system. Before the marriage, the parties entered an antenuptial contract in terms of which the husband recorded the value of his estate at the commencement of the marriage as approximately R68.7 million, which amount was adjusted for inflation to an amount of R129 million. The wife declared the commencement value of her estate to be nil.

Years later, when the marriage broke down, the wife challenged the accuracy of the husband’s declared commencement value. She argued that the amount recorded in the antenuptial contract was inflated and that, if the husband’s true starting value were used, his estate had grown substantially during the marriage. On this basis, she claimed that she was entitled to an accrual payment of roughly R18 million.

The Legal Question Before the SCA

The issue at the heart of the dispute has divided South African courts for years: Are spouses strictly bound by commencement values recorded in an antenuptial contract, or may those values be challenged later as merely prima facie proof of what each spouse owned at the start of the marriage?

The answer depended on the correct interpretation of section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act, No. 88 of 1984 (“MPA”).

The SCA’s Interpretation of Section 6(3) of the MPA

Writing for a unanimous court, Acting Judge of Appeal Bloem undertook a detailed analysis of section 6 of the MPA and the conflicting case law.

The SCA drew a firm distinction between two situations contemplated by the Act:

1. Where commencement values are expressly recorded in an antenuptial contract; and

2. Where no values are recorded in the contract and are instead declared later in a statement under section 6(1), or not declared at all.

The court held that section 6(3) applies only to antenuptial contracts where no commencement value is declared and to statements made under section 6(1). In those circumstances, the declared (or deemed) value serves merely as prima facie proof and may be challenged with evidence.

However, where spouses explicitly agree on commencement values in their antenuptial contract, those values constitute conclusive proof and are binding on both parties. This flows not from the MPA itself, but from ordinary common-law principles of contract. The SCA affirmed that an antenuptial contract is a bilateral agreement, and courts will generally hold parties to the terms they freely agreed to.

The Outcome of the Case Before the SCA

The SCA found that the wife could not challenge the commencement value recorded in the antenuptial contract unless she could attack the contract itself on recognised grounds, such as fraud, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, or rectification. In the circumstances, none of those grounds were established.

Importantly, even on the wife’s own expert evidence, the husband’s estate at dissolution was valued at approximately R117 million, which was lower than the inflation-adjusted commencement value of R129 million. As a result, no accrual had occurred at all, and the wife’s claim necessarily failed.

Broader Impact of DCM v CCM

This SCA ruling brings long-overdue certainty to the law by definitively resolving conflict between earlier High Court decisions. It is an unequivocal affirmation that commencement values recorded in antenuptial contracts are binding between the parties.

For couples intending to marry under the accrual system, this ruling underscores the seriousness of declaring commencement values. The judgment affirms that commencement values are not informal estimates or mere background information. Rather, commencement values constitute binding contractual terms, and ultimately determine whether substantial sums change hands upon the dissolution of the marriage.

The decision brings into sharp focus the need for careful and informed valuation before an antenuptial contract is signed. It underscores the importance of full disclosure, accurate asset identification, and professional valuations, where necessary. Where business interests, investments, or complex estates are involved, approximate or hastily prepared figures can have permanent legal consequences.

As such, DCM v CCM is far more than a technical exercise in statutory interpretation. It is a firm endorsement of contractual certainty in matrimonial property law and a reminder that the choices made at the outset of a marriage can decisively shape the financial outcome at its dissolution.