A v A (2013/00875) [2015] ZAGPJHC 259 (20 November 2015)

A v A (2013/00875) [2015] ZAGPJHC 259 (20 November 2015)

The court found that a universal partnership existed between the parties from 1994 until their separation, based on their joint contributions to business ventures and property acquisitions. The evidence established that both parties brought assets, labour, and skill into the partnership, and their activities were conducted for their joint benefit with the object of making a profit. The court excluded the inherited properties and sewing machines from the partnership estate, as there was no evidence of intention to include them as partnership assets. The Holt Street Guesthouse, although registered in the Cokaloka Trust, was deemed a partnership asset due to the parties' conduct and...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 259
Parties
Plaintiff: D [A……]; Defendant: A [A……] [G…….]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2015
Case Number
2013/00875
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Trial on Separated Issues
Outcome
Universal partnership declared; estate to be divided equally excluding specified assets; action postponed sine die for determination and distribution of partnership estate; no order as to costs.
Judges
Gaibie
Legal Topics
Universal Partnership, Division of Estate, Trust Piercing, Separation of Issues, Insolvency Act, Public Policy
Family and Children Civil Procedure Land and Property Universal Partnership Division of Estate Trust Piercing Separation of Issues Insolvency Act +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D [A……]

Plaintiff

A [A……] [G…….]

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Trial on Separated Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties entered into an oral or tacit universal partnership during their marriage.
  2. 2 Whether assets acquired during the marriage, including those held in trusts and close corporations, form part of the partnership estate.
  3. 3 Whether the inherited properties and sewing machines are excluded from the partnership estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a universal partnership existed between the parties from 1994 until their separation, based on their joint contributions to business ventures and property acquisitions. The evidence established that both parties brought assets, labour, and skill into the partnership, and their activities were conducted for their joint benefit with the object of making a profit. The court excluded the inherited properties and sewing machines from the partnership estate, as there was no evidence of intention to include them as partnership assets. The Holt Street Guesthouse, although registered in the Cokaloka Trust, was deemed a partnership asset due to the parties' conduct and...

Court Disposition

Universal partnership declared; estate to be divided equally excluding specified assets; action postponed sine die for determination and distribution of partnership estate; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the Kempton Park Property, the Lonehill Property, and the furnishings inherited by the defendant do not form part of the universal partnership and are the exclusive property of the defendant.
  • It is declared that the sewing machines used for the corporate clothing business do not form part of the universal partnership and are the exclusive property of the plaintiff.