Protracted divorce proceedings frequently leave spouses vulnerable and uncertain, especially where disputes arise over the family home. A common question is whether a spouse may rely on their continued occupation therein until the finalisation of the divorce proceedings, even where the property belongs to the other spouse. Divorce proceedings may be aggravated by difficulties relating to the division of property, especially where spouses are married out of community of property, subject to the accrual system, and where such property is solely owned by one spouse.
In the recent judgment of Muller v Masureik (807/2024) [2026] ZASCA 1, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) had to navigate this tension – grappling with the intersection between ownership rights, contingent accrual rights and eviction proceedings. At its core, the question arose whether a spouse’s unresolved financial claim trumps another party’s registered ownership to a property. In other words, the court concerned itself over the question of whether a spouse’s pending accrual claim confers a right of occupation that may be enforced against third-party purchasers, and whether such purchasers are bound by the doctrine of notice. This judgment importantly clarifies the nature and limits of a spouse’s accrual rights prior to the dissolution of a marriage and it affirms the primacy of ownership rights.
Settlement proposals failed
The spouses in this case had been married out of community of property, subject to the accrual system. When couples marry out of community of property, that means that both spouses keep their estates separate throughout the subsistence of the marriage. However, with the accrual system applicable, it allows spouses to – upon death or divorce – share in the increase in wealth, which is the difference between the growth of each spouse’s estate it gained throughout the marriage.
Divorce proceedings were instituted as far back as 2010 yet remarkably remained unresolved fifteen years later. At the centre of the dispute lies property purchased by the husband in 2003, which was registered solely in his name. The property functioned as the matrimonial home of the family even though ownership never vested in the wife or daughter. The parties’ adult daughter also resided on and operated a horse-riding livery business on the property.
The husband decided to sell the property in 2022. Despite being aware of pending divorce proceedings, the sale and transfer proceeded. Despite the arrangements proposed to the wife and daughter to incentivise them both to find alternative accommodation, they refused to vacate the premises, declaring that the wife’s contingent accrual claim primarily lies against the property.
Accrual remains contingent
Any prospects for settlement proposals or negotiations had failed. The husband and the new purchasers instituted eviction proceedings under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (“PIE”). The argument was made on behalf of the wife and daughter that the husband had been intentionally colluding with the purchasers to subvert the wife’s accrual claim in their divorce action. Regardless, the high court found no evidence of such collusion and subsequently granted the eviction order, finding that the wife and daughter were in unlawful occupation notwithstanding their assertions to the contrary. The wife and daughter, cited as the applicants, applied for leave to appeal, which was refused by the high court and the SCA.
Both the high court and the SCA confirmed an important principle: spouses married out of community of property have no vested rights to any of the assets of the other spouse and that any right to claim half of the accrual remains contingent (conditional) until the divorce proceedings have been finalised. Such contingent rights do not prevent a spouse from dealing freely with their property before the dissolution of the marriage and, only upon the finalisation of the divorce, does an accrual claim arise. Our courts have also confirmed that such a claim does not extend to a right of occupation but essentially remains a financial claim. The SCA’s decision confirms that a spouse’s contingent accrual claim does not confer a right of occupation that is enforceable against third parties.
The applicants sought to rely on the doctrine of notice to enforce their right of occupation against the third-party purchasers –essentially wanting the court to develop the common law to recognise a wife’s right to occupy the matrimonial home until the divorce has been finalised as a method of protection against third-party purchasers. However, the SCA dismissed their reliance on the doctrine of notice, ruling that the purchasers are not bound by the doctrine despite having knowledge of the pending accrual claim and that, in the absence of a vested right, the doctrine of notice does not apply. The doctrine of notice therefore cannot be invoked where there exists no enforceable personal or real right.
As a last resort, despite their leave to appeal being dismissed, the persistent applicants applied to the SCA for reconsideration of the decision in terms of section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. This section, only applicable under exceptional circumstances, allows the President of the SCA to refer matters for reconsideration where grave failures of justice or threats to the integrity of the judicial process would otherwise result. The wife and daughter relied on their constitutional right to housing, dignity and access to courts, but unfortunately the matter was inadequately pleaded as they failed to demonstrate that a grave injustice or judicial disrepute would indeed follow. The SCA ruled that the applicants’ case did not fall within this category, that the refusal of leave to appeal is confirmed and that the eviction order stands.
Does not confer rights of occupation
In this judgment the SCA provides much-needed clarity on the scope and limitations of matrimonial accrual rights pending the finalisation of divorce proceedings. The court distinguished between financial claims and proprietary entitlements, confirming that accrual claims are contingent until divorce and that such claims do not confer the spouse with rights of occupation. A spouse married out of community of property cannot rely on a pending accrual claim to resist eviction or, alternatively, to assert their right of occupation against third-party purchasers. The doctrine of notice therefore does not elevate contingent rights over another party’s registered ownership. The SCA has reinforced the legal certainty in property transactions by drawing a clear distinction between matrimonial claims and proprietary claims. The judgment also noted the exceptionally limited nature of applications for reconsideration, stressing that it is not a mere mechanism to use on a whim in an attempt to re-argue the merits of a case, but rather a residual safeguard against grave injustices that might otherwise follow. This case serves as a reminder of both the principle of finality in litigation, as well as the boundaries of matrimonial property protection.
LLB
LLB
LLB
LLB LLM
B Com LLB
LLB
LLB
B Com LLB
B Com LLB
