A Limpopo man who moved in with his girlfriend and also renovated her home, turned to the high court to claim a portion from the house after their relationship collapsed.
The man wanted the Limpopo High Court in Polokwane to declare his previous relationship a partnership for gain. Furthermore, he wanted an appointment of a liquidator to liquidate the assets and divide the proceeds thereof between them.
The former couple met in 2014 and moved in together until 2019. They lived in the woman's house because when they met, the man was living with his sister.
At some point, the woman indicated that the house was too small for them as she was also living with her daughter.
That's when they decided to extend the house, and according to him, they all shared the household expenses by means of an equal contribution of R300 every month.
He denied that his contribution towards the property constituted a gift or a donation. Instead, he said his contribution was at all times towards the partnership.
Moreover, he claimed that he had intentions to get married and had commenced with lobola discussions and had also bought wedding rings.
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
In her defence, the woman said she lived with her ex-boyfriend from 2014 until 2019 and there were times when he left for extended periods.
Regarding his contribution towards the renovations, she was adamant that there was no explicit discussion, or tacit intention on her behalf, to create a partnership of any form. Moreover, there was never any discussion that he would acquire any right whatsoever towards her property.
She said the only discussion that they had was that the house was too small to accommodate the three of them and through his own volition, he offered to use a portion from his pension fund to extend the property.
She added that there was no lobola discussions, the ex-boyfriend only gave her R10,000 to keep but never indicated that it was lobola money. She denied choosing a wedding ring or even receiving it.
In addition, she said she was able to take care of herself and the ex-boyfriend never contributed towards her welfare.
Acting judge Marianne Bresler said it must be kept in mind that a societas universorum bonorum (universal partnership of all property) does not equate to a marriage in community of property.
"The normal principles pertaining to contributions of spouses in a marriage in community of property will therefore not apply to determining if a societas universorum bonorum came into existence. The mere fact that parties cohabitate does not entitle them to a proportionate share of the other parties’ estate," she said.
The judge said the conduct of the couple can be interpreted as being actions that naturally follows from cohabitation.
Judge Bresler dismissed the application with costs.