Can a Joint Bank Account Be Frozen After Death in South Africa?

 

Here is a straightforward, layman’s explanation of what happens to a joint bank account after one holder dies in South Africa:

Account Gets Frozen After Death
If one of the people on a joint bank account in South Africa dies, the bank will freeze the entire account as soon as they are notified (usually after seeing the death certificate). This means nobody (including the surviving account holder) can draw money or make payments from this account.

Why is the Account Frozen?
South African law does not treat joint accounts in the same way as some other countries. The money in a joint account is not automatically passed on to the survivor. The deceased’s portion becomes part of their estate, which must be sorted out and managed by a court-appointed executor.

No Access Until Estate Is Processed
All direct debits and transactions from the joint account stop. The surviving partner or spouse will need to open a new bank account in their own name. The money in the frozen account will only be released to the survivor once the executor finishes their work, which can take some time.

What Should You Do?
It’s wise to set up separate bank accounts, emergency funds, or life insurance, so that loved ones are not left without access to money immediately after a death. This is especially important to cover day-to-day living and funeral costs.

In Summary:
In South Africa, if you have a joint bank account and your co-account holder dies, the bank will freeze the whole account. You will not be able to get any of the money until the estate is sorted out. Plan ahead so you (and your family) have another way to pay for urgent needs during this time.

The account typically stays frozen for several weeks to a few months, depending on how quickly paperwork is sorted and the court-appointed executor is able to act. Delays are common, so it is wise to plan for this by having other funds available for immediate needs

If you need more details on the legal process or assistance with estate planning, it is recommended to speak to a lawyer or financial advisor familiar with South African law.

When Your Antenuptial Contract Locks in the Numbers: Lessons from Manelis v Manelis on the Accrual System

The Supreme Court of Appeal in Manelis v Manelis ZASCA 55 has delivered an important judgment on how commencement values in antenuptial contracts operate under the accrual system. The Court held that where spouses expressly record the commencement value of their estates in the antenuptial contract, those values are contractually binding and serve as conclusive proof between them, unless the contract is successfully attacked on recognised common-law grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence or common error (with rectification). ​

The dispute arose in a divorce between spouses married out of community of property with accrual. The husband’s commencement value was recorded in the ANC as R68,7 million, which the parties later agreed equated (after CPI adjustment) to R129 million shortly before dissolution of the marriage. The wife argued that this value was overstated and tried to rely on section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 to “re-open” the commencement value and prove a lower figure, which would have created a substantial accrual claim in her favour.​

There were conflicting High Court decisions on whether section 6(3) makes the ANC only prima facie proof of commencement values or whether it applies only where no value is declared and a later notarial statement is used. The SCA resolved this by drawing a sharp distinction:​

• If a commencement value is declared in the antenuptial contract, the ANC is governed by ordinary contract law, and the value is binding and conclusive.​
• Section 6(3) applies only where no value is declared in the ANC and a later statement is made, or where the value is deemed nil under section 6(4)(b); in those situations, the statement or deemed nil value is only prima facie proof and may be rebutted by evidence.​

On the facts, the wife did not attack the ANC on contractual grounds and, crucially, even on her own expert’s evidence the husband’s estate at divorce was worth less (about R117,2 million) than the CPI‑adjusThe Supreme Court of Appeal in Manelis v Manelis ZASCA 55 has delivered an important judgment on how commencement values in antenuptial contracts operate under the accrual system. The Court held that where spouses expressly record the commencement value of their estates in the antenuptial contract, those values are contractually binding and serve as conclusive proof between them, unless the contract is successfully attacked on recognised common-law grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence or common error (with rectification). ​

The dispute arose in a divorce between spouses married out of community of property with accrual. The husband’s commencement value was recorded in the ANC as R68,7 million, which the parties later agreed equated (after CPI adjustment) to R129 million shortly before dissolution of the marriage. The wife argued that this value was overstated and tried to rely on section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 to “re-open” the commencement value and prove a lower figure, which would have created a substantial accrual claim in her favour.​

There were conflicting High Court decisions on whether section 6(3) makes the ANC only prima facie proof of commencement values or whether it applies only where no value is declared and a later notarial statement is used. The SCA resolved this by drawing a sharp distinction:​

• If a commencement value is declared in the antenuptial contract, the ANC is governed by ordinary contract law, and the value is binding and conclusive.​
• Section 6(3) applies only where no value is declared in the ANC and a later statement is made, or where the value is deemed nil under section 6(4)(b); in those situations, the statement or deemed nil value is only prima facie proof and may be rebutted by evidence.​

On the facts, the wife did not attack the ANC on contractual grounds and, crucially, even on her own expert’s evidence the husband’s estate at divorce was worth less (about R117,2 million) than the CPI‑adjusted commencement value of R129 million. Since accrual is the amount by which the net value at dissolution exceeds the commencement value, there was no positive accrual in his estate and no claim arose. The SCA therefore dismissed the appeal with costs, including the costs of two counsel and the condonation application for late filing of the record.​

For practitioners and clients, the message is clear: commencement values recorded in an ANC are not just a formality; they are the backbone of future accrual calculations. Parties should ensure they understand and agree to these values at the time of contracting, because they will be bound by them unless the ANC itself can be set aside or rectified on solid legal grounds.​