KEY POINTS
- A Limpopo male attempted to obtain ownership rights to his ex-girlfriend’s house by providing funds for home improvements.
- Cohabitation exists apart from granting financial rights automatically according to legal court rulings.
- The judge dismissed the case which forced the man to cover the court expenses.
A Limpopo man spent his pension money on home renovations for his ex-girlfriend’s residence but lawyers protected her property rights when they split up.
The man went to the Polokwane High Court of Limpopo Province with a demand to obtain financial benefits from his former relationship.
The petitioner asked for a liquidator to assess property value in order to distribute it fairly between him and the former cohabitee.
Altough dating since 2014 the couple resided in the female partner’s residence until 2019. The man stated they used their combined funds to manage the household budget and he rejected characterizing house contributions as a gift by showing it served the purpose of mutually building their shared future together.
The man asserted that he started protocols for paying bride price and purchased wedding rings as part of his justification for shared ownership.
The court dismissed the claim of establishing a partnership bond
The woman refuted all partnership terms by emphasizing that the man extended her house voluntarily without any agreement for shared ownership despite his help.
She explained that no formal lobola negotiations occurred while asserting that the R10000 financial payment she received from her ex-husband remained undefined for marriage purposes.
The court decision established that establishing a home jointly does not supply entitlement to demand property ownership interests from a domestic partnership.
Court explained that universal partnership stands distinct from marriage in community assets while no financial benefit from shared money automatically translates to ownership rights.
The court rejected the male applicant’s petition along with cost charges because his financial contributions did not establish a valid claim to property ownership.
