The Fiduciary Institute of Southern Africa (FISA) has developed an extensive archive of court case summaries relating to fiduciary matters. The summaries are written by FISA CEO, Jan du Plessis. Members can access the court cases on the website. A recent example follows below:
Court case – Eviction proceedings and the failed claim (of a claimant) in an alleged permanent life partnership
Jansen Van Rensburg NO v Poole and Others (21515/2024) [2026] ZAWCHC 162 (9 April 2026)
Click here to download the case
https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2026/162.html
Introduction
The Court, Van Zyl A J, opened the judgment with the following observation: “These proceedings are the result of a long and convoluted saga involving at least two families. At the centre was a man – since deceased – who was loved by those who knew him, but who was the cause of the trouble.”
For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the main application. The applicant (LJvR) was the executor of the deceased’s estate. Because there was a cash shortfall in the estate, the immovable property at the center of the dispute had to be sold to defray estate expenses. LJvR brought an application in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE), seeking the eviction of the first to fourth respondents, from the property known as Retreat, Cape Town, registered in the deceased’s name.
The deceased and the first respondent (MFP) were romantically involved for a period, although they never married. The second respondent (AP) and the third respondent (LP) were MFP’s daughters. The fourth respondent comprised all other unlawful occupiers. The City of Cape Town was cited as the fifth respondent and the Master of the High Court as the sixth respondent.
The deceased was survived by several children from his previous marriage to FL, from whom he was divorced, as well as from other relationships. These children were his intestate heirs.
The counter-application
At the initial hearing, MFP launched a counter‑application in which she effectively sought an order declaring that she and the deceased were in a permanent life partnership involving reciprocal duties of support. If successful, she would have been regarded as a spouse for purposes of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987.
Case law considered by the Court to prove the existence of a life partnership
In assessing whether a permanent life partnership existed, the Court referred to Paixao v Road Accident Fund (https://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl?file=za/cases/ZASCA/2012/130.html&query=paixao%20near%20v%20near%20road%20near%20accident%20near%20fund), in which the Supreme Court of Appeal held that proving such a partnership required more than cohabitation and shared household expenses. It required credible evidence of a conjugal relationship akin to marriage, including a reciprocal duty of support, whether expressly agreed or tacitly assumed.
The Court also relied on Bwanya v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Others (https://www.saflii.org/cgibin/disp.pl?file=za/cases/ZACC/2021/51.html&query=bwanya%20near%20v%20near%20master%20near%20of%20near%20the%20near%20high%20near%20court%20near%20cape%20near%20town%20near%20others), where the Constitutional Court endorsed the Paixao approach. Paragraphs 55 and 56 of that judgment emphasised that permanent life partnerships were intimate, long‑term relationships intended to endure until death, often featuring reciprocal duties of support, and in many respects resembling marriages.
Further reference was made to National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs, Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund 2000(2) SA 1 (CC) par 46, and Dawood and another v Minister of Home Affairs and others; Shalabi and another v Minister of Home Affairs and others 2000(3) SA 936 (CC) par 30, in which the Constitutional Court described marriage as a relationship of profound personal and public significance. The Court adopted the definition of “conjugal” as relating to marriage or the relationship between married persons.
The Court concluded that permanent life partnerships were intimate relationships intended to continue until the death of one or both partners, and that such partnerships must, through express or tacit agreement, include reciprocal duties of support.tu
Evidence
The Court referred the question of whether a permanent life partnership existed between MFP and the deceased to oral evidence. Sixteen witnesses testified over four days—eight for the executor and eight for MFP.
Although the full record was extensive, it was evident that:
- After his divorce from FL, the deceased continued living with her and their daughters at the Northpine property, which remained his permanent residence until his death.
- At one stage, the deceased moved in with MFP at the Retreat property under the pretense that he was a boarder. In 2013 he bought the property from MFP and became the registered owner. After becoming the owner, he lived in separate quarters from those occupied by MFP and her children. Shortly before the Covid lockdown in March 2020, he moved back to the Northpine property.
- His clothing, personal belongings, and tools remained there.
- FL shared a bed, bedroom, and bathroom with him until he was hospitalised shortly before his death.
- FL transported him to the hospital when he contracted Covid.
- FL and her children arranged a sixtieth birthday celebration for him, which MFP did not attend.
- MFP acknowledged that the deceased still regarded the Northpine property as his home.
- The deceased used the Northpine address for correspondence relating to his Allan Gray investments, FNB Wealth and Capitec accounts, SA Homeloans bond statements, medical account demands, and pension fund documents.
- FL arranged a memorial service for him which was not attended by MFP
Conclusion
On the totality of the evidence, the Court concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that no permanent life partnership existed between the deceased and MFP at the time of his death.
The Court dismissed MFP’s counter‑application. MFP, AP, LP, and all other unlawful occupiers were ordered to vacate the property. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in both the main application and the counter‑application.
Comments:
This judgment reinforces the high evidentiary threshold for proving a permanent life partnership.
Cohabitation and shared household expenses alone are not sufficient; the Court requires clear, credible evidence of a conjugal relationship with reciprocal duties of support.
