D[....] v B[....] and Others (23664/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 212 (30 March 2021)

D[....] v B[....] and Others (23664/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 212 (30 March 2021)

The court found that the plaintiff and first defendant were in a relationship akin to husband and wife, and that the plaintiff made substantial financial and labour contributions to the businesses and assets managed by the first defendant. The evidence established that both parties intended to build and accumulate assets for their joint benefit, and that the plaintiff was not merely an employee but a partner in a universal partnership. The court accepted that the partnership was tacitly formed through conduct and mutual intention, and that the assets and businesses operated by the first defendant formed part of the partnership. The thirteenth defendant (Family Trust) was properly before...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 212
Parties
Plaintiff: L[....] D[….]; Defendant: G[....] V[....] O[....] B[....]; Defendant: Bulcon Construction CC; Defendant: Nature Heights Properties CC; Defendant: Kareeboom Properties CC; Defendant: Big D Bumpers CC; Defendant: Rider Forklift Bumpers CC; Defendant: Jointshelf 1187 CC; Defendant: Tribal Zone Trading 678 CC; Defendant: Lagoon Beach (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Chisleton (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Kyalami Burn (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Tabac (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: B[....] Family Trust; Defendant: G[....] V[....] O[....] B[....] (in his capacity as trustee of the B[....] Family Trust)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2021
Case Number
23664/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial and Application for Absolution From the Instance
Outcome
The court declared that a universal partnership existed between the plaintiff and the first defendant, dissolved on 1 July 2016, and ordered the appointment of a liquidator to realise and distribute the partnership assets equally. Claims against deregistered entities were dismissed. The counterclaim was dismissed....
Judges
M J Teffo
Legal Topics
Universal Partnership, Cohabitation, Division of Assets, Undue Enrichment, Liquidation of Partnership, Trust Litigation
Family and Children Commercial and Corporate Universal Partnership Cohabitation Division of Assets Undue Enrichment Liquidation of Partnership Trust Litigation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L[....] D[….]

Plaintiff

G[....] V[....] O[....] B[....]

Defendant

Bulcon Construction CC

Defendant

Nature Heights Properties CC

Defendant

Kareeboom Properties CC

Defendant

Big D Bumpers CC

Defendant

Rider Forklift Bumpers CC

Defendant

Jointshelf 1187 CC

Defendant

Tribal Zone Trading 678 CC

Defendant

Lagoon Beach (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Chisleton (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Kyalami Burn (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Tabac (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

B[....] Family Trust

Defendant

G[....] V[....] O[....] B[....] (in his capacity as trustee of the B[....] Family Trust)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial and Application for Absolution From the Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a universal partnership existed between the plaintiff and the first defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a division of partnership assets in equal shares.
  3. 3 Whether the thirteenth defendant (Family Trust) is properly before the court despite alleged non-joinder of trustees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff and first defendant were in a relationship akin to husband and wife, and that the plaintiff made substantial financial and labour contributions to the businesses and assets managed by the first defendant. The evidence established that both parties intended to build and accumulate assets for their joint benefit, and that the plaintiff was not merely an employee but a partner in a universal partnership. The court accepted that the partnership was tacitly formed through conduct and mutual intention, and that the assets and businesses operated by the first defendant formed part of the partnership. The thirteenth defendant (Family Trust) was properly before...

Court Disposition

The court declared that a universal partnership existed between the plaintiff and the first defendant, dissolved on 1 July 2016, and ordered the appointment of a liquidator to realise and distribute the partnership assets equally. Claims against deregistered entities were dismissed. The counterclaim was dismissed....

Orders

  • The thirteenth defendant is properly before the court.
  • The action against the eighth to twelfth defendants is dismissed.