The appellant, Ms Zorah Banoo Khan, and the respondent, Mr Salim Mohamed Shaik, cohabited for approximately 20 years in a romantic relationship. Ms Khan alleged that during this period they were parties to a tacit universal partnership (societas universorum bonorum), to which she contributed labour and skill, and that they jointly built up wealth, including a business owned by Mr Shaik. The parties separated in 2009 when Mr Shaik left the common home permanently and commenced a new relationship, later marrying another woman. The parties divided their movable assets at separation and had no further joint business dealings thereafter. In 2015, approximately six years later, Ms Khan instituted proceedings seeking a declarator that a universal partnership existed, its dissolution, and the appointment of a liquidator to divide the fruits equally. The High Court dismissed the application on the basis that the claim had prescribed. The existence of the universal partnership was assumed only for purposes of deciding prescription.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
This judgment clarifies that claims arising from universal partnerships are contractual in nature, constitute personal rights, and are subject to ordinary three-year prescription under the Prescription Act. It provides authoritative guidance on when prescription begins to run in universal partnership disputes, emphasising that termination is a factual enquiry and that a court order is not required for dissolution. The case is significant for cohabitation-related property disputes and limits the time within which former partners may assert partnership-based claims.