The applicant and respondent were married in 2018 out of community of property with the accrual system. No children were born of the marriage. Their antenuptial contract stated the net values of their estates at commencement were nil, excluding certain Midrand properties owned by the applicant. On 20 February 2022, the parties jointly purchased immovable property in Sunningdale as their marital home for R3,715,000.00. Both signed a joint home loan application, with the applicant as 'main applicant' and the respondent as 'co-applicant or surety'. The applicant paid the R200,000.00 deposit, transfer duty and transfer fees; the respondent paid the bond registration costs. The property was registered in both names in equal half-shares on 9 June 2022, subject to a mortgage bond in favour of Standard Bank. The applicant paid the monthly bond instalments of R32,362.00; the respondent paid rates and municipal charges averaging R2,800.00 per month. Marital problems arose, protection orders were sought, and the applicant instituted divorce proceedings. The applicant voluntarily vacated the property on 1 October 2023, moving to rented accommodation in Milnerton. The respondent and her teenage son remained in the property. The applicant sought termination of co-ownership under the actio communi dividundo, praying for sale of the property on the open market and division of net proceeds. The respondent resisted, arguing the property's fate was inextricably intertwined with the pending divorce action, including the accrual claim and maintenance issues.
The application was postponed for hearing as a trial in the fourth division simultaneously with the divorce action under case number 15064/2023 on 4 November 2024. The affidavits filed stood as pleadings. All case management directives in the divorce action applied equally. All questions of costs stood over for later determination.
Where co-ownership of immovable property between spouses arises from and is constituted as a consequence of the marriage relationship — such as the purchase of a marital home — and a reciprocal duty of support exists, the co-ownership constitutes bound co-ownership. In bound co-ownership, the actio communi dividundo is not available and the co-ownership endures for as long as the primary extrinsic relationship (the marriage) endures. It can only be terminated when the marriage is dissolved.
The court noted that even if its characterisation of the co-ownership as bound co-ownership was wrong, it did not follow that it was equitable for the property to be sold as prayed. The court has a wide equitable discretion to order alternative relief. It observed that the affidavits alerted the court to the possibility of the respondent setting off the cost of acquiring the applicant's half-share against her accrual claim, but the court could not determine the fairness of this without knowing the market value, equity, accrual award size, and spousal maintenance. Additionally, the court noted that the applicant had taken on the bond responsibility as a discharge (or partial discharge) of the reciprocal duty of support, which differentiated this case from investment or commercial co-ownership.
This case clarifies the application of the free versus bound co-ownership distinction from Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Chrisal Investments in the context of marriages out of community of property. It establishes that the character of co-ownership is not determined solely by the matrimonial property regime but by whether the co-ownership is a consequence of the marital relationship itself, particularly where the property serves as the marital home and a reciprocal duty of support exists. It affirms that the actio communi dividundo cannot be used to circumvent the holistic determination of patrimonial issues in a pending divorce.