Pretoria - The rights of partners who live together in a relationship but aren’t married came under the spotlight in the high court in Pretoria, as a man dumped his partner after 18 years for another woman, leaving her financially in the cold.
The woman, 50, identified only as P, turned to court to obtain an order that she and her former partner, identified only as M, were engaged in a universal partnership and that she was entitled to half the assets built up over the years.
As the law stands, it does not give automatic rights to partners living together without being married.
M, 48, denied the existence of an automatic partnership. But P said he always understood that each other’s possessions and properties belonged to both of them.
The woman believed that, as they bought their joint property, they were going to grow old together and were working towards the same goal.
“We were looking forward to sitting on a stoep to watch the sun set.
“He even joked that he would buy me a house with a stoep somewhere in the Free State.”
M, a financial manager, did not dispute this.
P said that when they moved in together, M was studying and she assisted by running the household and making things as comfortable as possible for him. M moved in with her. They planned their dream home and P sold her house to contribute to that.
She had no problem that it be registered in M’s name, because she trusted him. While their dream house was being built, M became involved with another woman and dumped P.
P said that during their relationship, he used to buy her expensive gifts, among them a R12 000 watch, and he took her on expensive holidays to, among others, Las Vegas.
He also bought her a Ducati motorbike.
All of this showed that the parties were committed to each other, despite the fact that M changed his mind.
Judge Nelisa Mali said it appeared M accepted the existence of a universal partnership but disputed the duration of the relationship.
“By anyone’s standards, 18 years was way more than reasonable to accept the existence of such a partnership,” the judge said.
As M earned more than P during the relationship, “it is fair and appropriate for her to share 33 percent of the defendant’s assets”, the judge said.
Pretoria News