Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
L.L v C.H NO and Others (A018010/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1440 (12 December 2023)
The High Court upheld an appeal declaring a tacit universal partnership between LL and EH and granting LL half of EH’s estate, while removing the executor.
L.M v R.K (9236/2014) [2022] ZAWCHC 1; [2022] 1 All SA 738 (WCC) (19 January 2022)
The court found that cohabiting partners formed a tacit universal partnership, pooled finances and assets, and ordered equal division of the estate.
Delport v Road Accident Fund (16825/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 213 (24 April 2020)
The court found that the plaintiff and the deceased were engaged, cohabited as a family, and shared household responsibilities and expenses, with the deceased acting as the breadwinner. The evidence established a reciprocal duty of support akin to that in a marriage, supported by acceptance from both families and plans for a formal union. The court held that the plaintiff discharged her onus to prove a legally enforceable duty of support, entitling her to protection as a dependent under the Road Accident Fund Act and section 9 of the Constitution. The defendant was found liable for the plaint…
Source excerpt
Kriek v Road Accident Fund (529/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 42 (5 March 2020)
The court found that the plaintiff and the deceased lived together as life partners in a relationship akin to marriage for nearly seven years, reciprocally maintaining each other and operating as a family unit. The evidence, largely uncontested and corroborated by the deceased's family, established a tacit agreement to support. The court held that the dependants' action extends to cohabiting partners where a legally enforceable duty of support exists, and that the plaintiff had proven such a duty on a balance of probabilities. In quantifying damages, the court accepted actuarial calculations…
Source excerpt
Jacobs v Road Accident Fund (21427/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 830; 2019 (2) SA 275 (GP) (23 November 2018)
The court found that the plaintiff and the deceased were in a long-term cohabitation relationship characterized by reciprocal duties of support, with the deceased maintaining the plaintiff and her minor children. The evidence established a tacit agreement to support, and the deceased had promised to marry the plaintiff once his divorce was finalized. The court held that the duty of support was legally enforceable and that public policy, as reflected in the Constitution, requires protection of dependents in relationships akin to marriage. The court rejected the defendant's argument that only f…
Source excerpt
J.S v J.H.S (19122/14) [2018] ZAWCHC 80; [2018] 3 All SA 662 (WCC); 2018 (6) SA 528 (WCC) (27 June 2018)
The High Court found a universal partnership between long-term cohabitees and ordered division of the joint estate, including transfer of the property share.
Mohajane v Road Accident Fund (2718/2015) [2017] ZAFSHC 172 (5 October 2017)
A High Court held that a surviving partner in a stable cohabitative relationship could claim loss of support from the Road Accident Fund.
Du Toit v Greyling NO (78173/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 892 (23 September 2016)
The court held that the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act does not extend maintenance rights to cohabitees in heterosexual relationships. The Constitutional Court's decision in Volks v Robinson is binding and confirms that only legally married spouses qualify as 'survivors' under the Act. The principle of subsidiarity requires that any challenge to the exclusion of cohabitees must be directed at the constitutionality of the legislation, not through incremental development of common law. The court lacks jurisdiction to declare Parliament's failure to legislate as unconstitutional, as this i…
Source excerpt
Steyn v Hasse and Another (A93/2013) [2014] ZAWCHC 120; 2015 (4) SA 405 (WCC) (15 August 2014)
The court found that the appellant’s occupation of the property was unlawful under the PIE Act, as the first respondent had properly withdrawn his consent and given adequate notice to vacate. There was no evidence of a reciprocal duty of support or a universal partnership arising from the parties’ cohabitation, nor any enforceable agreement granting the appellant a right to occupy the property for ten years or to receive alternative accommodation. The appellant’s claims regarding her health and inability to secure alternative accommodation were unsupported by medical evidence and contradicted…
Source excerpt
Matuwe v Matuwe and Others (22/2011) [2011] ZANWHC 71 (8 December 2011)
The court held that the applicant, as a cohabitant of the deceased and in a relationship akin to marriage, qualifies for protection under the Domestic Violence Act. The Act's definitions and constitutional principles require a purposive and inclusive interpretation of 'domestic relationship' to cover vulnerable persons in cohabitation. The Magistrate acted within her powers in granting a protection order, as the conduct complained of—harassment and intimidation—falls squarely within the Act's ambit. However, the order granted was inappropriate as it effectively evicted the applicant without d…
Source excerpt
Explore more
