Module
Unique code
Student Number
Page | 1
Name & Surname
Assignment 2
Mans v Mans (CCT95/19) [2020] ZACC 09
Facts of the case
The case is about two married people who are Mrs Anita Mans(applicant) and Mr
Heinrich Mans(respondent) who got married out of community of property on 28
August 1993 which now want to divorce. The applicant drafted a document that
purported to be a postnuptial agreement (agreement) The terms of the agreement
were that the respondent would set aside the antenuptial contract; the applicant
would be entitled to half of his estate; and he would pay her maintenance.
There is a dispute between the parties about the circumstances that resulted in the
signing of the agreement. The respondent signed it to maintain peace in the house
for the sake of their minor daughter, he alleges. He also alleges that the signatures
of the applicant and witnesses were appended in his absence. The document was
signed on the morning of November 10, 2014, without hesitation or opposition from
the respondent, according to the applicant's story, which was verified by their little
daughter. The applicant further claims that she conveyed the document's
reasonableness to the respondent and the court.
The applicant discovered that the respondent had continued with an extra-marital
affair. She also uncovered an email from his attorney with a draft settlement
agreement attached to it which indicated a potential divorce action. The parties
thereafter continued to stay together as husband and wife, according to the
application. The respondent asked for divorce after being confronted. The
respondent filed a divorce summons, along with ancillary orders regarding the
parties' parental rights and responsibilities over their minor daughter. On behalf of
their daughter, the applicant filed a counterclaim seeking a divorce decree and child
Unique code
Student Number
Page | 1
Name & Surname
Assignment 2
Mans v Mans (CCT95/19) [2020] ZACC 09
Facts of the case
The case is about two married people who are Mrs Anita Mans(applicant) and Mr
Heinrich Mans(respondent) who got married out of community of property on 28
August 1993 which now want to divorce. The applicant drafted a document that
purported to be a postnuptial agreement (agreement) The terms of the agreement
were that the respondent would set aside the antenuptial contract; the applicant
would be entitled to half of his estate; and he would pay her maintenance.
There is a dispute between the parties about the circumstances that resulted in the
signing of the agreement. The respondent signed it to maintain peace in the house
for the sake of their minor daughter, he alleges. He also alleges that the signatures
of the applicant and witnesses were appended in his absence. The document was
signed on the morning of November 10, 2014, without hesitation or opposition from
the respondent, according to the applicant's story, which was verified by their little
daughter. The applicant further claims that she conveyed the document's
reasonableness to the respondent and the court.
The applicant discovered that the respondent had continued with an extra-marital
affair. She also uncovered an email from his attorney with a draft settlement
agreement attached to it which indicated a potential divorce action. The parties
thereafter continued to stay together as husband and wife, according to the
application. The respondent asked for divorce after being confronted. The
respondent filed a divorce summons, along with ancillary orders regarding the
parties' parental rights and responsibilities over their minor daughter. On behalf of
their daughter, the applicant filed a counterclaim seeking a divorce decree and child
