Wilson-Yelverton v Gallymore
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Caney AJ |
Judgment Date | 30 January 1950 |
Citation | 1950 (2) SA 26 (D) |
Hearing Date | 20 January 1950 |
Court | Durban and Coast Local Division |
Caney, A.J.:
The applicant applies for an order for the ejectment of the respondent from residential premises which he has occupied under the terms of a tenancy contained in a document dated the 29th June, 1949. The respondent has taken in limine the objection that the applicant, on the face of her application, has no locus standi in judicio. The document I have mentioned describes the applicant as 'Mrs. T. Wilson-Yelverton'; it does not otherwise indicate her status, whether she is married, widowed or divorced; nor, if the first, whether or not she is subject to the marital power.
In her affidavit in the present proceedings the applicant describes herself as 'wife of Thomas Arthur Wilson-Yelverton'. For the respondent it is contended that prima facie she therefore has no locus standi to bring the application, and reference is made to Grobler v Schmilg and Freedman (1923 AD 496 at p. 501) where DE VILLIERS, J.A., said
Caney AJ
'Matrimonial disputes apart, a married woman, except in two or three cases, has no legitima persona standi in judicio. She is a minor, under the marital power of her husband, and cannot either sue or be sued'.
The respondent contends that there is a presumption that the applicant is married in community of property and is subject to the marital power because there is no evidence to the contrary. That a woman married in community of property, who is not a public-trader, cannot sue in contract, even with her husband's assistance, was decided in Olufsen v Fielder (1930 NPD 260). The action can be instituted only by her husband because she is subject to his marital power. But it appears from Wall, Marriott & Paul v Lachimma (1942 NPD 150) that in certain circumstances she can sue in contract, assisted by her husband. There is, however, nothing to show that the applicant's husband assists her in these proceedings. The opposing contention put forward on the applicant's behalf, however, is that the onus is upon the respondent to establish that she has no locus standi in judicio by proving as a fact that she is married in community of property or at any rate is subject to the marital power.
I understand our law to be that every marriage is presumed to be in community of property unless the contrary be proved by the production of an ante-nuptial contract excluding community or by evidence that the property rights of the parties to the marriage are governed by the law of some place which does not attach community to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tesoriero v Bhyjo Investments Share Block (Pty) Ltd
...Agency 1921 TPD 62: applied Spindrifter (Pty) Ltd v Lester Donovan (Pty) Ltd 1986 (1) SA 303 (A): applied Wilson-Yelverton v Gallymore 1950 (2) SA 26 (D): applied. J 2000 (1) SA p170 Statutes Considered Statutes A The Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, ss 11, 14, 15(2)(h), 15(6): see Juta......
-
Simon NO v Air Operations of Europe Ab and Others
...SA 182 (W) at 183B Yorigami Maritime Construction Co Ltd v Nisho-Iwai Co Ltd 1977 (4) SA 682 (W) at 486B Wilson-Yelverton v Gallymory 1950 (2) SA 26 (D) C De Wet en van Wyk Kontraktereg en Handelsreg vol 1 5th ed at 371—2, n 125 at Erasmus Superior Court Practice at E8—8/9 Forsyth Private I......
-
Carson and Others NNO v Spencer
...to Watkins v Fick 1941 WLD 229; Schoeman v Kruger 1944 TPD 80; Matthee v Van Schalkwyk 1949 (2) SA 95 (O); Wilson-Yelverton v Gallymore 1950 (2) SA 26 (D); Neseman and Neseman v Stratford 1957 (2) SA 363 Mr De Klerk's argument for the applicants proceeded from the following C passage in Mey......
-
Carson and Others NNO v Spencer
...to Watkins v Fick 1941 WLD 229; Schoeman v Kruger 1944 TPD 80; Matthee v Van Schalkwyk 1949 (2) SA 95 (O); Wilson-Yelverton v Gallymore 1950 (2) SA 26 (D); Neseman and Neseman v Stratford 1957 (2) SA 363 Mr De Klerk's argument for the applicants proceeded from the following C passage in Mey......
-
Tesoriero v Bhyjo Investments Share Block (Pty) Ltd
...Agency 1921 TPD 62: applied Spindrifter (Pty) Ltd v Lester Donovan (Pty) Ltd 1986 (1) SA 303 (A): applied Wilson-Yelverton v Gallymore 1950 (2) SA 26 (D): applied. J 2000 (1) SA p170 Statutes Considered Statutes A The Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, ss 11, 14, 15(2)(h), 15(6): see Juta......
-
Simon NO v Air Operations of Europe Ab and Others
...SA 182 (W) at 183B Yorigami Maritime Construction Co Ltd v Nisho-Iwai Co Ltd 1977 (4) SA 682 (W) at 486B Wilson-Yelverton v Gallymory 1950 (2) SA 26 (D) C De Wet en van Wyk Kontraktereg en Handelsreg vol 1 5th ed at 371—2, n 125 at Erasmus Superior Court Practice at E8—8/9 Forsyth Private I......
-
Carson and Others NNO v Spencer
...to Watkins v Fick 1941 WLD 229; Schoeman v Kruger 1944 TPD 80; Matthee v Van Schalkwyk 1949 (2) SA 95 (O); Wilson-Yelverton v Gallymore 1950 (2) SA 26 (D); Neseman and Neseman v Stratford 1957 (2) SA 363 Mr De Klerk's argument for the applicants proceeded from the following C passage in Mey......
-
Carson and Others NNO v Spencer
...to Watkins v Fick 1941 WLD 229; Schoeman v Kruger 1944 TPD 80; Matthee v Van Schalkwyk 1949 (2) SA 95 (O); Wilson-Yelverton v Gallymore 1950 (2) SA 26 (D); Neseman and Neseman v Stratford 1957 (2) SA 363 Mr De Klerk's argument for the applicants proceeded from the following C passage in Mey......