- The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that a spouse married out of community of property cannot remain in a matrimonial home sold before the divorce is finalised.
- Accrual claims are contingent financial rights and do not amount to ownership or occupation rights.
- An attempt to block eviction through a reconsideration application failed, with the court emphasising that the process is not a second appeal.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has affirmed that a spouse involved in protracted divorce proceedings cannot rely on a pending accrual claim to remain in occupation of a matrimonial home that has already been sold and transferred to a third party.
In JMM and Another v Cara Dorothy Masureik and Others, the court dismissed an application brought by a wife who continued to occupy the former matrimonial home years after her husband had sold the property while their divorce remained unresolved. The judgment provides clarity on the limits of accrual rights and reinforces the protection given to lawful purchasers.
The matter arose from a divorce that has remained unresolved for more than 15 years. During this time, the husband sold the property that served as the family home. When eviction proceedings were instituted, the wife opposed the application, arguing that the property formed part of the estate against which she intended to pursue an accrual claim once the divorce was finalised.
Accrual rights do not confer occupation rights
Writing for the court, Judge RM Keightley clarified that a spouse married out of community of property with accrual does not acquire rights to specific assets during the marriage.
“The accrual claim is a contingent right,” Judge Keightley explained, stressing that it only crystallises once the marriage is dissolved. Until that point, a spouse has no enforceable entitlement to any particular asset owned by the other spouse.
The court noted that the Matrimonial Property Act does not restrict a spouse from dealing with their own property during the marriage, even where an accrual system applies.
“The fact that an asset may ultimately be taken into account in the calculation of an accrual claim does not give rise to a right of occupation or any form of proprietary entitlement,” Judge Keightley said.
Consequently, the wife’s continued occupation of the property after its transfer amounted to unlawful occupation. The court rejected arguments that the purchasers’ knowledge of her presence prevented eviction.
“There is no personal or real right capable of binding the purchasers,” Judge Keightley observed, adding that the doctrine of notice could not be relied on where no underlying right existed.
Reconsideration is not a second appeal
The wife also relied on Section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act, applying for reconsideration after leave to appeal had been refused. The Supreme Court of Appeal rejected this approach.
“Reconsideration involves something more than dissatisfaction with the outcome,” Judge Keightley said. “It is not a mechanism to re-argue the merits of the case.”
The court held that the threshold for reconsideration is high and requires a showing that a grave failure of justice would result if the matter were not revisited. No such circumstances were present.
Regarding the eviction itself, the court confirmed that the High Court had properly applied the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, including granting a reasonable period for the occupants to vacate.
“There is no basis to conclude that the discretion was exercised improperly or unjustly,” Keightley said.
The application was dismissed with costs, ending a dispute that had spanned more than a decade and reinforcing the principle that accrual rights, while relevant at divorce, do not override ownership or delay eviction where property has been lawfully sold.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
