Tag Archives: common law

To marry or not to marry…

A1When a man proposes marriage to the love of his life and she accepts the proposal and they become engaged, they are said to have concluded a contract to marry in the future. When an engagement is called off one often gets the situation where the aggrieved party wants to sue his/her ex for breach of promise.

Recent case law regarding the breach of promise to marry

Although there is frustration and heartbreak that may be experienced at the end of an engagement, the unfortunate reality of the matter is that it is not that easy to succeed in a monetary claim against somebody who is not intent on fulfilling his/her promises. 

Our common law has, over the years, recognised the principle that the aggrieved party has a claim for breach of promise. Traditionally this claim comprises two parts, namely:

  1. The delictual claim which the aggrieved party would have under the action injuriarum for contumelia, in other words, damages for the humiliation caused as a result of the break-up of the relationship; and
  2. The contractual claim for the actual financial loss suffered by the aggrieved party as a result of the break-up of the relationship of the parties. 

Van Jaarsveld vs Bridges (2010) SCA

In the Supreme Court of Appeal case Van Jaarsveld vs Bridges (2010), it was found that no claim in South African law exists other than actual expenses incurred in the planning and preparation of the marriage.

In the judgement DP Harms, in respect of breach of promise, draws attention to a court’s right and more importantly, duty to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice and at the same time to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.

DP Harms said that he is unable to accept that parties, when promising to marry each other, at that stage of their relationship would contemplate that a breach of their engagement would have financial consequences as if they had in fact married. The assumption of the two parties is that their marital regime will be determined by their subsequent marriage. DP Harms then concluded that in his view an engagement is more of an unenforceable pactum de contrahendo, providing a spatium deliberandi: “a time to get to know each other better and in which they would decide whether or not to finally get married.”

ES Cloete vs A Maritz (2013) WCH

The question whether or not the claim for breach of promise is a valid cause of action in South African law was once again considered in the Western Cape High Court. In this Court, Judge Robert Henney was the presiding Judge in the matter of ES Cloete vs A Maritz.

Miss Cloete claimed that Mr Maritz proposed formally to her in Namibia on the 9th February 1999 with an engagement ring, and she accepted.

The relationship was turbulent and a decade later Maritz called off the engagement and the intended wedding, telling her that he no longer wanted to marry her or even see her, and that he had someone new in his life.

Cloete instituted action against Maritz and alleged that Maritz’s refusal to marry her amounted to a repudiation of the agreement which they had reached 10 years earlier.

Her claim

There were three aspects to Cloete’s claim:

1. She wanted repayment of R26 000.00 that she had given him in 1994 and 1996 for a business he was involved in.

2. She wanted R6.5 million to make up for the financial benefits she would have enjoyed had they concluded the marriage, including amounts for the use and enjoyment of the house commensurate with the lifestyle enjoyed and maintained by the parties at the time of their cohabitation. She also wanted maintenance of R8 500.00 a month for 25 years.

3. Finally she wanted R250 000.00 in damages for breach of promise, impairment to her personal dignity and her reputation.

His claim

Maritz denied the allegations that Cloete has made and stated in replying papers that Cloete was in fact the one who had called off their wedding and he had merely accepted it. Maritz raised a special plea that “breach of promise” did not constitute a valid cause of action based on the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgement in Van Jaarsveld vs Bridges 2010 (4) SA 558 (SCA), a judgement which this court is obliged to follow.


In his judgment Judge R Henney said: “Clearly, to hold a party accountable on a rigid contractual footing, where such a party fails to abide by a promise to marry does not reflect the changed mores, morals or public interest of today.”

Judge R Henney went on to say in his judgement: “It is my view that considerations of public policy and our own society’s changed mores cannot permit a party to be made to pay prospective damages on a purely contractual footing, where such a party wants to resign from a personal relationship and thus commits a breach of a promise to marry. Such a situation is in my view entirely untenable and cannot be allowed.”

The judge also said: “As pointed out by Sinclair, The Law of Marriage Vol 1 (1996), to hold a party liable for contractual damages for breach of promise may in fact lead parties to enter into marriages they do not in good conscience want to enter into, purely due to the fear of being faced with such a claim. This is an untenable situation.” 


The world has moved on and morals have changed. Divorce, which in earlier days was only available in the event of adultery or desertion, is now available in the event of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. There is no reason why a just cause for ending an engagement should not likewise include the lack of desire to marry the particular person, irrespective of the ‘guilt’ of the latter. Unwillingness to marry is clear evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of the engagement. It appears illogical to attach more serious consequences to an engagement than to a marriage.

Maritz`s special plea was upheld and it was found that the claim for breach of promise is not a valid cause of action in South African law. As appears from the above decision, no claim in law exist other than actual expenses incurred in the preparing of the marriage. This effectively excluded any damages for breach of the promise to marry.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Common law marriage in South Africa

A4In South African law there is no such thing as a common law marriage. People simply believe that living together with another person for a continuous period of time establishes legal rights and duties between them. This is a common misunderstanding especially with young adults.

The only way to be protected in our law is to enter into a universal partnership agreement. Such an agreement clarifies the rights and duties of the partners. The agreement will determine what would happen to property and assets of the couple if they should decide to separate. The agreement is, however, not enforceable in so far as third parties are concerned. Only a valid marriage is enforceable against third parties. It is important to note that partners can sometimes be jointly and severally liable if they acted within the scope of the partnership. An agreement such as this will be legally binding as long as it contains no provisions that are immoral or illegal. If there is no agreement on the dissolution of a universal partnership agreement, a party would only be entitled to retain those assets which he or she has purchased and owns and further would be entitled to share in the assets proportionately in terms of the contribution which they have made to the partnership.

To prove the existence of such a partnership it must be shown that:

  • The aim of the partnership was to make profit.
  • Both parties must have contributed to the enterprise.
  • The partnership must operate to benefit both parties.
  • The contract between the parties must be legitimate.
  • There must be valid consent.
  • There is an intention to create a legally binding agreement.

Where there is no express agreement, a tacit agreement may be proved if it is found that it is more probable than not that such an agreement had been reached between the parties at the time of cohabitation.

Because the existence of a universal partnership is somewhat difficult to prove, and it may not be a claim that you wish to have to make or defend, it is advisable to consider entering into a contract that spells out how property should be dealt with on termination of the relationship by death or otherwise. Such a contract would provide some certainty for cohabitees regarding the division of assets and settlements of liability on termination of the relationship.

Some of the consequences of the absence of a legal ground between parties in such relationships are:

  • No exemption from donations tax in respect of donations between them.
  • Cohabitees do not benefit from the laws relating to the exemption from estate duty of bequests to spouses.
  • There is no reciprocal obligation of maintenance.
  • Cohabitee is not a recognised claimant if his/her partner dies intestate.
  • There is no right to property or assets that belong to cohabitee.
  • There is no reciprocal duty to contribute to household necessities.

The Domestic Partnerships Bill of 2008 is still in its formulation stage and it remains to be seen how it is to be implemented. In the current constitutional dispensation it is unlikely that a partner will be left in despair, taking into account the Domestic Partnerships Bill.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Die gemenereghuwelik in Suid- Afrika

A3Daar is geen gemenereghuwelik in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg nie. Mense glo dat deur vir ‘n aaneenlopende tydperk saam met iemand anders te woon, regte en verpligtinge tussen hulle gevestig word. Hierdie misverstand kom veral voor by jong volwassenes.

Die enigste manier om onder ons reg beskerming te geniet is deur ‘n universele vennootskapooreenkoms tussen die twee partye te sluit. So ‘n ooreenkoms gee duidelikheid oor die regte en verpligtinge van die partye. Hierdie ooreenkoms sal bepaal wat met die eiendom en bates van die partye gaan gebeur as hulle besluit om uitmekaar te gaan.  Hierdie universele vennootskapooreenkoms tussen die partye is nie afdwingbaar teenoor derdes nie. Slegs ‘n geldige huwelik is afdwingbaar teenoor derdes. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat vennote soms gesamentlik en afsonderlik aanspreeklik gehou kan word as hulle binne die bestek van die vennootskap optree. ‘n Ooreenkoms soos hierdie sal regtens bindend wees solank die bepalings nie immoreel of onwettig is nie. Sou daar geen ooreenkoms wees oor die ontbinding van ‘n universele vennootskapooreenkoms nie sal ‘n party slegs geregtig wees op die behoud van die bates wat hy of sy gekoop het en besit en sal hy of sy voorts geregtig wees daarop om proporsioneel die bates te deel volgens die bydrae wat elk tot die vennootskap gemaak het.

Om te bewys dat so ‘n ooreenkoms bestaan sal die partye die volgende moet kan aantoon:

  • Die doel van die vennootskap was om wins te maak.
  • Albei partye moes bygedra het tot die vennootskap.
  • Die bepalings moet tot voordeel wees van albei partye.
  • Die bepalings in die kontrak moet nie onregmatig wees nie.
  • Daar moet geldige wilsooreenstemming wees.
  • Daar is ‘n wedersydse voorneme om ‘n regtens geldige ooreenkoms te skep.

Waar daar geen uitdruklike ooreenkoms bestaan nie mag daar wel ‘n stilswyende ooreenkoms wees. So ‘n stilswyende ooreenkoms kan afgelei word as bevind word dat dit waarskynlik is dat sodanige ooreenkoms tussen die partye bereik is ten tye van hul saamwonery.

Omdat die bestaan van ‘n universele vennootskap moeilik is om te bewys is dit raadsaam om ‘n kontrak aan te gaan waarin uiteengesit word hoe daar met eiendom te werk gegaan moet word as die verhouding weens dood of om ‘n ander rede beëindig word. So ‘n kontrak sal ‘n mate van sekerheid vir die saamwoners skep oor die verdeling van bates en die afrekening van verpligtinge by beëindiging van die verhouding.

Sommige gevolge van ‘n verhouding waar daar nie ‘n geldige verbintenis tussen die partye bestaan nie, is:

  • Geen wedersydse verpligting om onderhoud te betaal nie.
  • Geen vrystelling van skenkingsbelasting in die geval van skenkings aan mekaar nie.
  • Geen voordeel ingevolge erfreg as een party intestaat sterf nie.
  • Geen reg op eiendom of bates van die saamwonende nie.
  • Geen wedersydse verpligting om by te dra tot huishoudelike noodsaaklikhede  nie.

Die ‘Domestic Partnership Bill’ van 2008 is steeds in sy formuleringstadium en daar sal gesien moet word hoe dit geïmplementeer word. In die huidige grondwetlike bedeling is dit onwaarskynlik dat ‘n vennoot in wanhoop gedompel sal word as die ‘Domestic Partnership Bill’ in berekening gebring word.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.