Universal Partnerships: what is required?

There is currently no statute in South Africa that regulates the relationships between cohabitees if they are not formally married.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Unit

In Bwanya v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Others [2021] ZACC, the court found that “the moment a universal partnership is proven to be in existence between the parties, it becomes a legally binding and valid arrangement, as it is the case with a traditional marriage.” 

A universal partnership, therefore, provides legal protection to partners who would otherwise have no recourse and gives couples an alternative to formal marriage. The existence of this type of partnership is not, however, always apparent, especially where the parties did not enter into a written agreement. 

This was the situation in a recent case held in the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town. The plaintiff sought a declaratory order to declare that a universal partnership existed between herself and the defendant in respect of all properties and monies acquired by them during their relationship and to declare the plaintiff to have a 50% share of the partnership.

As there was no written agreement between the parties, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove the existence of a universal partnership, and she relied on the implied agreement between herself and the defendant. The court referred to the Supreme Court of Appeal’s case between Butters v Mncora, where the court found that a universal partnership of all property does not require an express agreement and that it can come into existence by a tacit agreement due to the conduct of the parties.  

In the above case, the court found that the plaintiff presented more than conclusive proof that a tacit universal partnership existed between herself and the defendant during their relationship and that she is entitled to a 50% share of the assets. The specific facts of each case will still play an important role when courts have to decide in such matters. 

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.

Recommended for you

The difference between movable and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

The AARTO Act: constitutional or unconstitutional?[post_view before=""]

The constitutional validity of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act and the Administrative Adjudication of Traffic Offences Amendment (AARTO Amendment) Act was recently challenged in the matter between the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) v The Minister of Transport and others.

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

CSOS and the courts: where do I take my dispute?[post_view before=""]

Here’s a look at a recent case which dealt with a dispute between the body corporate and residents in a sectional title scheme.

Read More
Your Trusted Partner in Residential and Commercial Property Transfers
Legislative Guidelines

The deal collapsed – is the attorney to blame?[post_view before=""]

The case of Nienaber N.O. and van den Berg (the plaintiffs) versus Nelson and Kitching Attorneys (the defendants) highlights the criteria of the duty of care a conveyancer should be aware of when providing services to clients. In this case, the plaintiffs instituted action alleging that the defendants owed them a duty of care as conveyancers and acted negligently and in breach of such duty. Let’s take a closer look.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Legislative Guidelines

Court ruling: Sale of immovable property – Alienation of Land Act[post_view before=""]

In the recent case of Potgieter v Village and others, held at the High Court of South Africa, Northern Cape Division, Kimberly, the applicant applied for an urgent interdict to restrain the first and second respondents from passing transfer of a specific property. The application for the interdict was pending action by the applicant to claim transfer of the property. In this case, both parties to the contract were represented by their attorneys.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Legislative Guidelines

Can void sale agreements be revived?[post_view before=""]

Formalities are hugely important when it comes to the sale of immovable property, which is governed by the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. The act states that no sale of land is permitted unless it has been put in writing and contained in a deed of sale – also commonly referred to as an Offer to Purchase – signed by all parties involved.

Read More

Need more Snymans content?

Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Universal Partnerships: what is required?

There is currently no statute in South Africa that regulates the relationships between cohabitees if they are not formally married.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Unit

In Bwanya v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Others [2021] ZACC, the court found that “the moment a universal partnership is proven to be in existence between the parties, it becomes a legally binding and valid arrangement, as it is the case with a traditional marriage.” 

A universal partnership, therefore, provides legal protection to partners who would otherwise have no recourse and gives couples an alternative to formal marriage. The existence of this type of partnership is not, however, always apparent, especially where the parties did not enter into a written agreement. 

This was the situation in a recent case held in the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town. The plaintiff sought a declaratory order to declare that a universal partnership existed between herself and the defendant in respect of all properties and monies acquired by them during their relationship and to declare the plaintiff to have a 50% share of the partnership.

As there was no written agreement between the parties, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove the existence of a universal partnership, and she relied on the implied agreement between herself and the defendant. The court referred to the Supreme Court of Appeal’s case between Butters v Mncora, where the court found that a universal partnership of all property does not require an express agreement and that it can come into existence by a tacit agreement due to the conduct of the parties.  

In the above case, the court found that the plaintiff presented more than conclusive proof that a tacit universal partnership existed between herself and the defendant during their relationship and that she is entitled to a 50% share of the assets. The specific facts of each case will still play an important role when courts have to decide in such matters. 

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.