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
New share buyback provisions in the Companies Act

New share buyback provisions in the Companies Act

On 25 July 2024, the amendments to the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the “Act”) were assented to by the President. Since then, certain provisions of the Companies Amendment Act 16 of 2024 (the “Amendment Act”) have come into operation on 27 December 2024. The Amendment Act introduces amendments to section 48 of the Act, which deals with share buyback transactions and is one of the provisions which are now in operation. A brief discussion of the amendments to section 48 follows.

Starlink’s signal “jammed” in SA? Navigating regulatory hurdles.

Starlink’s signal “jammed” in SA? Navigating regulatory hurdles.

American satellite internet giant Starlink is set to make waves in South Africa but has locked horns with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (“ICASA”). Starlink has urged ICASA to rethink its requirements for issuing licenses to service providers in South Africa, set in terms of the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005 (“ECA”). This clash between a large international enterprise and the South African government highlights the complexities of introducing foreign investment into a well-established Black Economic Empowerment (“BEE”) regulatory environment. What follows below is a brief observation of the latest developments regarding Starlink’s proposed entry into South Africa as a service provider and foreign investor.

Merger retrenchments or operational cuts – Where’s the line?

Merger retrenchments or operational cuts – Where’s the line?

2024 was filled with a flurry of new proposed acts, regulations, and landmark judgments, so, understandably, some significant decisions may have gone unnoticed. One such case is the recent judgment in Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Another 2024 (4) SA 391 (CC) (17 April 2024), wherein the Constitutional Court examined whether retrenchments were merger-specific or the consequence of operational requirements.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest