South Africa Case Law

Yablonek v Thomson (10968/2021)

Yablonek v Thomson (10968/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 261 (20 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10968/2021

Judge

Sipunzi

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the trial date and his absence was not intentional or deliberate. The explanation for his default was satisfactory and fell within the scope of Rule 42(1)(a). The delay in bringing the rescission application was explained and not unreasonable, considering the applicant's efforts to secure legal representation and obtain trial documents. The applicant demonstrated prospects of success in his counterclaim, which compensated for the delay. On an objective conspectus of all facts, the requirements for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) were met,…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Wilful Default
• Co Ownership Termination
• Universal Partnership
• Delay In Application

Cholo v Motlana (61773/2021)

Cholo v Motlana (61773/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 322 (27 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61773/2021

Judge

MM Mojapelo

The High Court terminated co-ownership of a jointly held property after a relationship ended, ordering sale or buyout and equal division of proceeds.

• Co Ownership Termination
• Actio Communi Dividundo
• Equitable Distribution
• Sale Of Joint Property
• Co-ownership-termination
• Actio-communi-dividundo

Buitendag v Van Rooyen (2024/077124)

Buitendag v Van Rooyen (2024/077124) [2025] ZAGPJHC 175 (17 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/077124

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The court found that the joint ownership of the property should be terminated due to the irretrievable breakdown of the parties' relationship. It exercised its equitable discretion to provide a mechanism for termination that balances fairness and practicality. The respondent is given the first option to buy out the applicant's share at a price determined by an independent valuer, with strict timelines and clear allocation of costs. The applicant is liable for 50% of the initial co-ownership expenses (deposit, transfer, bond registration, rates, and taxes), but not for transfer costs into the…

Source excerpt

• Co Ownership Termination
• Actio Communi Dividundo
• Division Of Property
• Financial Adjustment Between Co Owners
• Transfer Costs Liability

P.N v A.E (20081/2023)

P.N v A.E (20081/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 266 (16 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20081/2023

Judge

Gordon-Turner

The court found that the co-ownership of the Sunningdale property between the parties is 'bound co-ownership' arising from their marriage relationship, notwithstanding the matrimonial property regime. As such, the co-ownership endures until the marriage is dissolved, and the actio communi dividundo is not presently available. Even if this characterization is incorrect, the court held that it would not be equitable to order the sale of the property at this stage, as alternative modes of division—such as one party acquiring the other's share—may become feasible depending on the outcome of the a…

Source excerpt

• Actio Communi Dividundo
• Matrimonial Property Act
• Accrual Regime
• Co Ownership Termination
• Spousal Maintenance

Vosloo v Verster and Others (Reasons) (1699/2023)

Vosloo v Verster and Others (Reasons) (1699/2023) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 91 (7 February 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1699/2023

Judge

Greyling-Coetzer

The High Court refused liquidation, partnership dissolution, and co-ownership termination, finding the applicant failed to prove deadlock, a partnership, or free co-ownership.

• Company Liquidation
• Just And Equitable Winding Up
• Partnership Essentialia
• Actio Communi Dividundo
• Co Ownership Termination
• Company-liquidation

Z.I v W.I and Another (13142/2022)

Z.I v W.I and Another (13142/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 95 (9 March 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13142/2022

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

High Court decision under the actio communi dividundo ordering joint co-owned property sold and the net proceeds divided equally after divorce.

• Actio Communi Dividundo
• Co Ownership Termination
• Division Of Proceeds
• Matrimonial Property
• Equitable Distribution
• Actio-communi-dividundo

D.S.L.A v D.S.P.J and Another (36581/2020)

D.S.L.A v D.S.P.J and Another (36581/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 182 (21 February 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

36581/2020

Judge

A Makume

The High Court terminated co-ownership of a jointly owned property, ordered its sale, and directed that costs, rentals, and sale proceeds be managed pending divorce.

• Actio Communi Dividundo
• Co Ownership Termination
• Joint Property Sale
• Division Of Proceeds
• Actio-communi-dividundo
• Co-ownership

B v B (38752/2016)

B v B (38752/2016) [2022] ZAGPJHC 748 (27 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

38752/2016

Judge

Wanless

The court dismissed an application to vary a Rule 43 maintenance order, awarded arrear maintenance, ordered sale of jointly owned property, and granted costs.

• Rule 43 Maintenance
• Contempt Of Court
• Variation Of Court Order
• Co Ownership Termination
• Arrear Maintenance
• Sale Of Joint Property

S v S (born R) (42712/2018)

S v S (born R) (42712/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 683 (14 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42712/2018

Judge

L R Adams

The court found that the divorce order itself should not be rescinded, as the defendant conceded the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and had no bona fide defence. However, prayer 3 of the order was erroneously granted, as it deviated materially from the relief pleaded by the plaintiff and failed to provide for the appointment of a liquidator, clear directions for sale, and division of proceeds. The order was vague and unenforceable, necessitating variation under Rule 42(1)(a). The defendant's counterclaim was not adjudicated or struck out and remained extant; the court ordered that it…

Source excerpt

• Variation Of Divorce Order
• Actio Communi Dividundo
• Rule 42 Application
• Co Ownership Termination
• Liquidator Appointment

Crawford v Goodman (21/37617)

Crawford v Goodman (21/37617) [2022] ZAGPJHC 435 (1 July 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/37617

Judge

Dosio

The High Court held that a universal partnership between cohabitees had ended, allowing termination of joint ownership of a Benoni property under actio communi dividundo.

• Actio Communi Dividundo
• Universal Partnership
• Co Ownership Termination
• Appointment Of Receiver
• Dispute Of Fact
• Partition Of Property