Cape Town - An ex-husband is set to be evicted from a R2.4 million Pinelands house registered in his former wife’s name, after the Western Cape High Court found there was no oral agreement preserving his half share in the property.
The matter ended in the high court on appeal, after the couple signed a draft deed of sale in 2017 transferring the man’s share in the property to the woman.
This took place after the woman received a distressing phone call from an attorney representing Standard Bank, who informed her that her husband had signed (the house) as surety for his struggling business.
Also, that as a result of its financial difficulties, the bank was on the brink of taking legal action which could result in the man’s share being attached and sold in execution at an auction to settle outstanding debt.
The parties were married according to Muslim rites, and purchased the property in November 2015, and initially registered it in both their names.
The woman, through a loan from her father, paid the deposit of R300 000, the transfer costs of R121 714, and the bond registration costs.
The couple divorced in March 2020, while the man continued living on the property.
He argued that when he signed the transfer to his former partner, there was an oral agreement that she would “hold” his share on his behalf, and he was therefore not an unlawful occupier.
According to him, the deed of sale was a simulated agreement and the transfer of his share was not an attempt to hide the property from his creditors.
However, the court ruled in favour of the woman, and ordered the man leave the property by February 2024.
“The appellant (woman) paid the R50000 to Standard Bank, the rates clearance costs in the sums of R31 901 plus R13 415, and the transfer duty in the sum R52950, without a contribution from the respondent (man) or an agreement of how he was going to reimburse her.
“These costs are always borne by the purchaser but if it was a simulated transaction as the respondent alleges, they would have shared these costs or at least agreed as to how the appellant was to be reimbursed.
“The absence of such an agreement is a further indicator that the deed of sale was the only agreement between the parties.
“The version of the respondent is so improbable, it has to be rejected in favour of the appellant.
“The acceptance of the version of the appellant, founded on her credibility, the reliability of her evidence which is objectively corroborated and the probabilities that the deed of sale was the only agreement between the parties, leads to the conclusion that there was no underlying oral agreement which preserved his half share in the property.”
francesca.villette@inl.co.za