Contact
Consent | Marriage | Marriage in community of property | Matrimonial Property Act

Spousal Consent: unveiling the challenges in community of property marriages

When spouses are married in community of property, our law dictates that a spouse requires the consent of the other spouse when entering into a transaction that affects the joint estate. But what happens when one spouse refuses to provide consent?

When spouses are married in community of property, our law dictates that a spouse requires the consent of the other spouse when entering into a transaction that affects the joint estate. But what happens when one spouse refuses to provide consent?

In accordance with Section 14 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, spouses married in community of property hold equal rights in respect of the disposal of assets of the joint estate, the contracting of debts which lie against the joint estate, and the management of the joint estate.

The result of the statutory provisions contained in Sections 15 and 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act is that a spouse must in some instances provide their spouse with written consent when entering into certain transactions which would have an impact on the joint estate or when acting in legal proceedings in respect of the joint estate. These provisions aim to protect the joint estate and ensure that both spouses are involved in the administration of their affairs.

That said, life happens and spouses may not agree. Accordingly, our law makes provision for instances where a spouse refuses to provide consent or consent cannot be obtained. Section 16 of the Matrimonial Property Act determines that a spouse seeking consent may apply to court to be permitted to enter into the transaction without the other spouse’s consent. The court will consider the circumstances and grant the application if it is convinced that the spouse withholding consent is doing so unreasonably or that a good reason exists to dispense with the consent.

The court also has the authority to, upon application by a spouse married in community of property, suspend a spouse’s power which he or she may exercise in terms of Chapter 3 of the Matrimonial Property Act for a definite or an indefinite period if the court is convinced that doing so would be necessary to protect the interests of a spouse in the joint estate.

Given the nature of a marriage in community of property, spouses so married must appreciate that as a rule their unilateral decision-making powers in respect of the joint estate are limited. That said, where a spouse is being unreasonable in refusing to provide consent, it may be worthwhile considering whether there is a need for the remedies indicated above. Consider consulting your attorney or family law specialist for guidance on whether an application to court is an option for you.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).

May 29, 2023
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , , ,

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , ,

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , ,

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest