2021 volume 1 p 184

• Date: 22 July 2021
• Published date: 22 July 2021

http s://do i.org /10.47 348 /T SAR /20 21/i1a12

TSAR 2021

. 1 [ISSN 0257 – 7747]

184 SONNEKUS

EINDE VAN GEMEENSKAPLIKE BOEDEL VAN ’N EGPAAR

GETROUD IN GEMEENSKAP VAN GOED EN AANVANG VAN

UITWISSENDE VERJARING VAN TERSAKE VORDERINGE VAL

SAAM

Koko v Koko (5403/2016) 2020 ZALMPPHC 72 (25 Augustus 2020)

Khan v Shaik 2020 6 SA 375 (HHA)

SUMMARY

DIVISION OF THE JOINT ESTATE CORRESPONDS WITH THE END OF THE

COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY OF SPOUSES MARRIED IN COMMUNITY OF

PROPERTY AND EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT CLAIMS

COMMENCE TO RUN SIMULTANEOUSLY

But for an extraordina ry order for a division of the joint estate stante matrimonio under sect ion 20 or 21

of the Matrimonial Pro perty Act 88 of 1984, the default joint estate of spouses mar ried in community of

propert y will come to an end wit h the demise of the mar riage. This is eithe r with the death of the  rst-

dying spouse or by an orde r of the divorce court. It is impossible to exte nd the joint estate beyond these

moments. With the end of t he joint estate, the erstwhi le spouses (or the estate of th e demised spou se)

are entitled to claim half of the value of the er stwhile joint est ate. If the par ties are unable to reach an

amicable agreement to this end, a liquidator will be appointed to  nalise the division of the assets.

As from the end of th e marriage, the former s pouses have separate estat es. Any new acquisition, gi ft,

inherit ance or income acqui red after that da te falls into the newly found ed separate estat e of the holder,

and the other pa rty has no claim to sha re in these assets.

In Koko v Koko t he respondent was marr ied in community of prop erty to Mr Koko in 1979 but that

marriage e nded in divorce by court order i n 2001. The respond ent left the previous marit al home that

was reg istered as joint p roperty in the names of both spou ses and retained inter ali a some m ovable

propert y from the erstwhile joint e state. M r Koko remained in t he house and continued to pay all

rates and ta xes, and the outst anding debt sec ured by a mortgag e bond was amort ised by the time of

his demise. He late r married the applicant a nd the couple lived in the house until h is demise in 2013.

Only years late r did the respondent claim half of the c urrent value of t he immovable proper ty as the

still-registered co-owner.

2021 TSAR 184

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

http s://do i.org /10.47 348 /T SAR /20 21/i1a12

EINDE VAN GEMEENSK APLIKE BOEDEL VAN ’N EGPAAR GETROU D IN GEMEENSKA P 185

[ISSN 0257 – 7747] TSAR 2021

. 12

In this co ntribution, attention is devot ed to the justiability of t he premi se of the cou rt th at the

claim should succe ed notwithst anding the fa ct that more tha n nineteen yea rs had lapsed sin ce the

applicable joint estate ended with the divorc e order and t he claimant did not contribute to the cur rent

unencumbe red value of the property.

If the claim to half of the value of the for mer joint estate is categorised as a p ersonal rig ht of the

claimant, it is sub mitted that t he effect of extinc tive prescript ion should have been consi dered. By

default, a debt is exting uished af ter thre e years and just the l isted categor ies of debts mentione d in

section 11(a) of the P rescription Act, including a judgment debt, will prescr ibe only af ter 30 years. It

is submitt ed that the div ision of the joint es tate is a natu ral consequence of the end of the marriage in

communit y of propert y, and in KwaZulu-Natal orders for a division of the joint estate of parties mar ried

in communit y of property are co nsistently refused when d ivorce orders are grant ed for the very reason

that they ar e unnec essary. In the absence of an applicable court order, the relevant debt ca nnot be

dened as a “judg ment debt” and the default presc ription period governe d by section 11(d) of Act 68 of

1969 should apply.

It is inequitable t hat a previous spouse may, more th an nineteen years af ter the divorce, benet f rom

the subse quent enhanced value of an asset that formed part of the erst while joint est ate at the cost of

another, who had contribute d to that cu rrently enhan ced value of the asset since the joint estate c ame

to an end. It boils down to unju stied enric hment if th is is accomplis hed under th e guise of her joint

ownership of the i mmovable proper ty still reg istered in the n ames of the former s pouses as orig inal

co-owner s because the real right of ow nership is imprescr iptible. A personal claim for h alf of the value

of the assets in t he estate would, however, have been prescr ibed after three years si nce the claim had

vested.

1 Die verstek huweliksgoedereregtel ike bedeling in die Suid-Afr ikaanse en d ie

gemenereg is die van gemeenskap va n goed. By ontstentenis van ’n geldig verlyde

huweliksvoorwaardeskont rak met inbegrip van d ie tydige registrasie van die

notarieel verlyde kontrak binne d rie maande na verlyding by die vera ntwoordelike

registrateur va n aktes, tree d ié huweliksgoedereregtelike be deling van regsweë in

met huweliksluiting (a 87 van die Registrasie van Ak tes Wet 47 van 1937). Op daardie

sekonde word die onderskeie gades se totale onaf hankl ike boedels saamgevoeg in

die gemeenskaplike boedel waa rvan beide gesamenderh andse halwe onverdeelde

reghebbendes is. Anders a s ’n bedonge mede-eienaarsverhouding t ussen selfstandige

regsubjekte wat byvoorbeeld ooreenkom om saam ’n bepa alde saak as objek soos

’n erf of ’n voertuig te koop, is die gesamenderhandse mede -regsverhouding

’n gebonde mede-reghebbendeverhouding en nie wil lekeurig ontbindbaar deu r

enige van die gades of selfs deur hul onderli nge wilsooreenstem ming sonder die

tussenkoms van d ie hooggeregshof nie. Omdat die mede-reghebbendeverhoud ing

betrekki ng het op alle vermoënsbates van d ie egpaar soos naa s saaklike reg te ook

vorderingsregte en i mmaterieelgoedereregte, is die regsverhouding n ie beperk slegs

tot ’n mede-eienaa rsverhouding ten aansien van sake as objekte nie. Die gebruikli ke

formulering van ’n gebonde gesamenderh andse mede-eienaarsverhoud ing is dus iets

té onsorgvuldig geformuleer om tegnies juis te wees. Voor die wysigings meegebring

deur die Wet op Huweliksgoedere 88 van 1984 was dit selfs nie moontlik om die

gemeenskaplike boedel te ontbind sonde r dat die huweliksverhouding as sod anig

regsgeldig beëindig word nie. Daaraan het a rtikel 21(1) van die wet ’n verandering

gebring en kan die hof tan s deur die gades gesamentl ik gedurende die huwelik vi r

’n wysiging van hul toekomstige huweliksvermoë nsregtelike verhouding gena der

word met nakoming van al die tersa ke vereistes. (Sien oa Ex parte Lourens et Uxor

and Four Other Similar Cases 1986 2 SA 291 (K); Ex parte Menzies et Uxor 1993 3

SA 799 (K); Honey v Honey 1992 3 SA 609 (W).)

Net so min as wat die gades wil lekeurig sonder verlyding van ’n geldige

huweliksvoorwaardeskont rak die gevolge van die verstekposisie kan vermy, kan

hulle behoudens enkele uitdr uklike uit sonderings waar voor die reg voorsiening

maak, deur hul t oedoen die duur van die gemee nskaplike boedel verleng ná die

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd