Those thinking that on divorce, the Ante Nuptial Contract will protect their pensions and assets because accruals were excluded in the pre-marriage contract, please think twice.....it is no longer the case, sharing is compulsory. Do not be misled by lawyers who will eat your money and at the end, you loose the fight. Just share quickly and ignore the nonsensical pre-marriage contract. See below: The Constitutional Court has handed down milestone rulings that alter how assets and pensions are shared upon divorce, explicitly targeting cases where the accrual system was excluded. The two primary cases dealing with this are outlined below: 1. The Pension Interest Ruling (9 October 2026) In the landmark case of GD v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (Case CCT 60/25), the Constitutional Court declared Section 7(7)(c) of the Divorce Act unconstitutional and invalid. • The Issue: Under the old provision, if a couple was married out of community of property without the accrual system after 1 November 1984, the economically weaker spouse could not claim a share of their partner's pension interest upon divorce. • The Ruling: The Court found that this restriction amounted to unfair gender discrimination, as women often enter marriages poorer and forgo careers to raise families, leaving them financially vulnerable. • The Impact: Judges now have the judicial discretion to include pension interests in asset redistribution, even if the couple's antenuptial contract (ANC) explicitly excluded the accrual system. It does not mandate an automatic 50/50 split, but gives judges the power to decide a fair distribution based on the duration of the marriage and contributions made. 2. The Blanket Asset Redistribution Ruling (October 2023) This recent pension case builds directly on a 2023 apex court ruling (EB v ER / KG v Minister of Home Affairs) which altered broader asset division. • The Change: The Court struck down Section 7(3)(a) of the Divorce Act. It ruled that courts can override a signed ANC that excludes the accrual system to order a redistribution of general assets if a strict adherence to the contract would cause serious hardship and inequality. Ignore the above at your own peril....