Allner v Werner (2584/2018) [2020] ZAECGHC 12; [2020] 2 All SA 49 (ECG) (25 February 2020)

Allner v Werner (2584/2018) [2020] ZAECGHC 12; [2020] 2 All SA 49 (ECG) (25 February 2020)

The court found that, although the initial period of cohabitation did not evidence an intention to form a universal partnership, the parties' conduct after resuming their relationship in 2001 demonstrated a common intention to pool resources and operate as a family unit. The plaintiff contributed significantly to household management, farming, and the administration of the blasting business, often without remuneration. The defendant's concessions during cross-examination supported the inference that both parties brought something into the partnership, carried on business for joint benefit, and aimed to make a profit. The court held that a universal partnership existed, encompassing all...

Citation
[2020] ZAECGHC 12
Parties
Plaintiff: Samantha Kim Allner; Defendant: Peter Roy Werner
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2020
Case Number
2584/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Universal partnership declared; plaintiff awarded 30% share of partnership assets; partnership dissolved as of June 2018; liquidator to be appointed if parties cannot agree; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs.
Judges
J.E Smith
Legal Topics
Universal Partnership, Cohabitation, Tacit Contract, Dissolution of Partnership, Equitable Distribution
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Universal Partnership Cohabitation Tacit Contract Dissolution of Partnership Equitable Distribution

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samantha Kim Allner

Plaintiff

Peter Roy Werner

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a universal partnership existed between the plaintiff and defendant during their cohabitation.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the partnership assets and, if so, the percentage thereof.
  3. 3 Whether the assets acquired during the partnership, including Melrose Farm and Werner Blasting (Pty) Ltd, should be included in the partnership estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the initial period of cohabitation did not evidence an intention to form a universal partnership, the parties' conduct after resuming their relationship in 2001 demonstrated a common intention to pool resources and operate as a family unit. The plaintiff contributed significantly to household management, farming, and the administration of the blasting business, often without remuneration. The defendant's concessions during cross-examination supported the inference that both parties brought something into the partnership, carried on business for joint benefit, and aimed to make a profit. The court held that a universal partnership existed, encompassing all...

Court Disposition

Universal partnership declared; plaintiff awarded 30% share of partnership assets; partnership dissolved as of June 2018; liquidator to be appointed if parties cannot agree; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that a universal partnership existed between the plaintiff and defendant of all assets acquired up to June 2018.
  • It is declared that the plaintiff has a 30% share in such partnership.