Constitutional Court Rules That Antenuptial Contracts Invalid After Paying Lobola

• The Constitutional Court delivered a landmark ruling in favour of customary marriages entered into before antenuptial contracts are signed
• The court ruled that customary marriages automatically fall under the community of property if an antenuptial contract is signed after the fact
• South Africans debated the ruling, as some praised the courts for empowering women and others accused it of stripping away tradition

With 10 years’ experience, Tebogo Mokwena, Briefly News’ Deputy Head of the Current Affairs desk, South Africa, provided insights into the criminal justice system, crime statistics, commissions of inquiry, and high-profile cases in South Africa at Daily Sun.

JOHANNESBURG — The Constitutional Court's recent ruling threw social media users into pandemonium. The court denied the validity of antenuptial contracts signed after customary marriages in a ruling it passed down in Johannesburg on 21 January 2026.

In a statement, the Constitutional Court released, it confirmed that the High Court's ruling that section 10(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act was unconstitutional. The section allowed changes to matrimonial property regimes without judicialoversight. This led to women being deprived of property and facing discrimination.

Read also

South Africans weigh in on Milnerton High students' assault case and possible expulsions

Read the statement on X here:

A look at the case leading to the landmark ruling

The High Court ruled in a matter between a couple, one of whom contested the divorce after their marriage ended in 2021. The couple was married in terms of customary law in 2011, signed an antenuptial contract, and entered into a civil marriage in 2019. However, the marriage ended in 2021, and the couple filed for divorce. The estate was not divided, and the woman took her ex-husband to court.

The applicant pleaded that the antenuptial contract (ANC) was invalid, or if it was valid, section 10(2) of the Recognition Act was unconstitutional. The High Court ruled in 2021 that section 10(2) was unconstitutional. The parties then appealed the High Court order ruling before the Constitutional Court, which upheld the ruling.

The Constitutional Court also recently ruled that men are allowed to take their wives' surnames. The court made the ruling on 11 September after the Free State High Court ruled that sections of the Births and Deaths Registration Acts are unconstitutional.

Read also

Two people shot dead at Booysens Magistrate’s Court, attorney remains in critical condition

What did South Africans say?

South Africans were in disbelief, and many made references to the divorce case between Black Coffee and actress Enhle Mbali.

Jenna asked:

"Can someone please call Black Coffee and see if he's okay?"

Nqubeko Sibiya said:

"It's gonna be a long year."

Be Humble said:

"It makes sense. How do you get married in community of property, then sign the prenup while already married? Those against this undermine our marriage as blacks."

EFF Ground Force said:

"It seems like every law is being created to deal with men."

Steve said:

"It has always been like that. Not sure why it had to go to the ConCourt for someone to understand this simple thing."

Supreme Court to review Black Coffee and Enhle Mbali divorce

In a related article, Briefly News reported that the Supreme Court confirmed on 6 January 2026 that it will review Black Coffee's ongoing divorce case with his ex-wife, Enhle Mbali. He was granted leave to appeal.

Read also

Western Cape Department of Education considering expelling Milnerton High alleged bullies

Black Coffee's appeal is centred around whether a valid customary marriage ever existed and whether the maintenance award in favour of Enhle Mbali was granted.

Source: Briefly News