In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act. 

Joint ownership is a relatively common phenomenon in South Africa, with couples, friends or even business colleagues choosing to buy property together on a shared basis. What is not always anticipated is how to deal with this jointly owned property when things start to go wrong in the relationship between the parties.

Where property is owned in joint ownership, each co-owner has an undivided share in such property, which share forms the subject of such joint ownership. Shares in the property need not always be equal, although generally shares are equally divided between the co-owners. 

Unless co-owners expressly agree otherwise, all co-owners are entitled to use the joint property reasonably in proportion to their shares and are entitled to share in the profits derived from the property, such as rental income, but must also share in the expenses of the property, such as rates and taxes, mortgage bonds and so forth.

No co-owner is obliged to remain a co-owner against his/her will, and each co-owner is entitled to have their co-ownership terminated. For a party to claim the termination of co-ownership, certain requirements must be met before a court provides an order for termination. These are:

1. Joint ownership must be proven.
2. Grounds for termination must be shown, such as refusal of the other owners to agree to termination, an inability to agree on the method of termination, or a termination agreement but a refusal by one of the parties to comply with the terms of the agreement.
3. Facts of the case upon which the court can exercise its discretion as to the method of termination. 

The court will always follow a method that is fair and equitable to all parties involved and can order dividing the property between the parties if possible, selling the property via public or private auction and dividing the net profits of the property, or allocating the property to one party as the owner, subject to payment of compensation to the others. Accordingly, after considering the merits of each case, the court will exercise its discretion in determining how the property should be handled when granting an order to terminate co-ownership.

In the recent Western Cape matter of Van Niekerk and Another v Van Niekerk and Others (Leave to Appeal) (19928/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 493 (27 October 2025), the High Court was approached for an order of termination of joint ownership. Four brothers were co-owners of five properties, which they inherited from their late parents. Two of the brothers and their families resided on some of the properties without paying rent. The brothers could not reach a consensus to place the properties under the management and administration of a local estate agency, resulting in the two brothers approaching the court for an order to terminate the co-ownership. The court provided an order in which each of the brothers who instituted the action was awarded property, each with them having to buy out the others and having the remaining properties sold with the proceeds divided between them all.  

The brothers residing on the properties were not happy with the order and instituted an appeal against the order, stating that the court order did not only terminate their co-ownership, but also terminated their right to continue to reside on the property with the effect of evicting them without due process being followed, namely without compliance with the prescribed procedure set out in the PIE Act.

On appeal, the court considered the context and purpose of the initial order given and concluded that there was no sound, rational basis on which the order could be interpreted as having the effect of an eviction. Nothing in the order required the parties to vacate their homes at any time, and they could still conclude lease agreements with the new owners. The properties involved were of high value, and the proceeds to be divided between the parties after the sale would be more than enough to obtain alternative accommodation. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs as the court found that, in this instance, the order for the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an illegal eviction as contemplated by the PIE Act.


Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).