A recent judgment of the Western Cape Division, N.C.M.W v P.S.K and Others (2025/218300) [2026] ZAWCHC 272 (29 May 2026), is a useful teaching case. On its face it is a routine eviction, but it draws together three distinct threads that practitioners meet constantly: the joinder of a spouse where property forms part of a joint estate, the limits of a litigant’s standing to invoke the legal practitioners’ code against the other side, and the perennial trap of proceeding by motion where a dispute of fact is staring you in the face. Yake AJ ultimately dismissed both points in limine but declined to grant the eviction, referring the matter for oral evidence under Rule 6(5)(g).
The Facts
The applicant was the registered owner of a unit in Kuilsriver. He and the respondent had been in a romantic relationship, during which she took occupation of the property. From there the versions diverge sharply. The applicant pleaded a verbal tenancy agreement, on terms that the respondent would occupy for three months and pay the body corporate levies and municipal accounts, later reluctantly extended on the same conditions. He alleged she fell into arrears, that he cancelled, and that her continued occupation was therefore unlawful within the meaning of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE). The respondent denied any agreement. Her case was that the parties had been engaged to be married, that a universal partnership existed between them, and that she occupied the property as a co-owner by virtue of that partnership. The parties even disagreed on the date of occupation, the applicant placing it in 2023 and the respondent on 8 July 2022.
The case took an unusual turn in reply. The applicant disclosed, for the first time, that he was in fact customarily married in community of property to a Ms M, that lobola had been paid as far back as 2018, and that he and Ms M had concluded a universal partnership agreement on 14 February 2018 recording an intention to marry in community of property. He expressly conceded that the property, though registered in his name alone, belonged to him and his wife in equal shares. Off the back of that concession the respondent raised two points in limine in her heads of argument: the non-joinder of Ms M, said to be a co-owner with a direct and substantial interest, and a conflict of interest, because Ms M (a legal practitioner) and her firm had been acting for the applicant.
Non-Joinder and the Reach of Section 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act
The Court approached joinder through Uniform Rule 10 and the settled distinction between necessary joinder and a joinder of convenience drawn from Amalgamated Engineering Union v Minister of Labour 1949 (3) SA 637 (A) and United Watch & Diamond Co (Pty) Ltd and Others v Disa Hotels Ltd and Another 1972 (4) SA 409 (C). The test for a necessary party, a direct and substantial interest that may be prejudicially affected by the order, was taken from Absa Bank Ltd v Naude NO and Others [2015] ZASCA 97; 2016 (6) SA 540 (SCA) and Gordon v Department of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 2008 (6) SA 522 (SCA), with the Gordon case confirming that a court must raise non-joinder of a necessary party mero motu, a proposition endorsed in Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Eskom Holdings Limited and Others; Mkhonto and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Limited [2017] ZACC 35; 2018 (1) SA 1 (CC).
Yake AJ accepted that, given the applicant’s own admission that the property fell into the joint estate, Ms M did hold a direct and substantial interest. (Practitioners should note an internal slip at paragraph 26, where the judgment records that it “cannot be argued” that she has such an interest, a phrase that reads against the surrounding reasoning, which proceeds from paragraph 27 onwards on the express footing that she does.) The crucial move, however, was the second leg of the enquiry: would Ms M be prejudiced by the order? The Court held she would not. The applicant’s standing flowed from section 4(1) of PIE, which confers locus standi on an owner or person in charge, and he was both. Section 17(1) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 (the MPA) requires spousal consent to litigate, but section 17(2) insulates the proceedings against any challenge premised on the absence of that consent, and section 17(3) protects the non-litigating spouse by allowing an adverse costs order to be recovered from the litigating spouse’s share of the joint estate. With Ms M’s proprietary rights left intact whichever way the eviction went, and her costs exposure neutralised, no necessary joinder arose. The point was dismissed.
The Conflict of Interest Point and Clause 3.9 of the LPC Code of Conduct
The second point in limine invoked clause 3.9 of the Code of Conduct for All Legal Practitioners, Candidate Legal Practitioners and Juristic Entities (GenN 168 in GG 42337 of 29 March 2019) (the LPC Code), read with clauses 3.5 and 3.6, on the basis that Ms M’s personal interest as a co-owner and alleged spouse clouded her independence as the applicant’s attorney. The Court accepted that where a practitioner holds a personal or financial interest in conflict with the client’s, withdrawal is mandatory rather than discretionary. On the facts, though, the interests of Ms M and the applicant were aligned, both wanted the respondent evicted, so no conflict capable of compromising her independence arose. Two further answers disposed of the point. First, the LPC Code regulates the disciplinary relationship between practitioner and the Council and confers no procedural rights on an opposing litigant; the respondent was not Ms M’s client and had no standing to invoke it to defeat the eviction. Second, the issue was moot, Ms M’s firm having withdrawn and Brasington Macris Inc. having come on record. The point was dismissed, though the Court pointedly observed that it would have been preferable for Ms M not to have acted for her spouse at all.
Disputes of Fact, the Plascon-Evans Rule, and the Rule 6(5)(g) Referral
With the preliminary points out of the way, the Court turned to the merits. Locus standi was beyond question, the applicant being the registered owner, the onus to establish standing resting on him per Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Van der Heever 1999 (3) SA 1051 (SCA). The familiar threefold eviction enquiry under PIE, lawful right to occupy, just and equitable to evict, and the terms of eviction, was set out with reference to Transcend Residential Property Fund Ltd v Mati and Others 2018 (4) SA 515 (WCC). The case foundered at the first stage. Applying Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA), Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T) and the final-relief rule in Plascon-Evans Paints (TVL) Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] ZASCA 51; 1984 (3) SA 623 (A), the Court found a genuine dispute of fact on whether the respondent was an unlawful occupier. The applicant had not been candid in his founding affidavit, could not specify the date of the alleged tenancy agreement, did not dispute the respondent’s occupation date of 8 July 2022, and offered no explanation for the lengthy delay before demanding that she vacate in June 2024. Set against the respondent’s universal partnership defence, this was not a dispute the papers could resolve.
The applicant ought to have foreseen the dispute and proceeded by action, or asked for a referral, rather than persisting by motion. The Court invoked its wide discretion under Rule 6(5)(g), which permits dismissal, the hearing of oral evidence on defined issues, or referral to trial. Although the respondent had asked for dismissal as her primary relief, Yake AJ held that dismissal would be too blunt and would not serve the interests of justice. The matter was instead referred for the hearing of oral evidence, limited to whether the respondent is in unlawful occupation, with Rule 35 discovery to apply and costs reserved for the court hearing the evidence.
Questions and Answers
Why did the Court hold that Ms M was not a necessary party despite finding she had a direct and substantial interest? Because the enquiry has two legs. A direct and substantial interest alone does not compel joinder; the interest must also be capable of being prejudicially affected by the order. The Court found that an eviction order would leave Ms M’s co-ownership untouched, so the second leg failed and joinder was not necessary.
Does section 17(1) of the MPA mean a spouse married in community of property can never litigate alone? No. Section 17(1) requires the other spouse’s written consent to institute or defend proceedings, but section 17(2) of the MPA prevents any other party from challenging the validity of those proceedings on the ground that the consent was absent. The practical effect is that want of consent does not vitiate the litigation.
How does section 17(3) of the MPA protect the non-litigating spouse? It allows any costs order made against the litigating spouse to be recovered from that spouse’s portion of the joint estate, thereby shielding the other spouse’s share from liability. This was central to the Court’s finding that no prejudice, and therefore no necessary joinder, arose.
What is the difference between necessary joinder and a joinder of convenience? Necessary joinder arises where a party has a direct and substantial interest that may be prejudiced by the order, as explained in the Amalgamated Engineering Union case and the United Watch case. A joinder of convenience is permissible but not essential and rests on practicality and the avoidance of multiple proceedings; its absence does not render proceedings defective.
Must a court raise non-joinder on its own? Yes, where a necessary party has not been joined. The Gordon case holds that a court must raise the non-joinder of a necessary party mero motu, because no enforceable order can be made in the absence of such a party, a position confirmed in the Matjhabeng case.
Can the opposing party in litigation rely on the LPC Code to disqualify the other side’s attorney? Generally not. The Court held that the LPC Code governs the disciplinary relationship between the practitioner and the Council and confers no procedural rights on an opposing litigant. The respondent was not the firm’s client and had no standing to invoke the Code to defeat the application.
When does the duty to withdraw for conflict of interest arise? Where a practitioner holds a personal or financial interest that conflicts with the client’s interests. The Court emphasised that in such a case withdrawal is mandatory and not a matter of discretion. On the facts, the interests of the attorney and her client were aligned, so no disqualifying conflict arose.
What is a “person in charge” for purposes of PIE? Under section 1 of PIE it is a person who has, or at the relevant time had, legal authority to permit a person to enter or reside on the land. The applicant qualified both as registered owner and as person in charge, since the responsibility for levies and municipal accounts rested on him.
On whom does the onus rest to establish locus standi in eviction proceedings? On the applicant. The Court relied on the Van der Heever case for the principle that the party instituting the proceedings must establish standing. Here it was common cause that the applicant was the registered owner, so standing was beyond question.
What is the threefold enquiry under PIE once standing is established? Whether the occupier has any lawful right to occupy, and if not, whether eviction would be just and equitable in all the circumstances, and if so, on what terms eviction should occur. The sequence is drawn from the Transcend case, and the enquiry stops if the occupation is found to be lawful or genuinely in dispute.
What is the Plascon-Evans rule and why did it matter here? The Plascon-Evans case holds that final relief on motion may be granted only on the facts stated by the respondent together with the admitted facts in the applicant’s papers, unless the respondent’s denial does not raise a real, genuine and bona fide dispute. Because a genuine dispute existed, final eviction could not be granted on the papers.
When is a dispute of fact “genuine and bona fide”? The Wightman case requires the disputing party to have seriously and unambiguously engaged with the fact in issue; a bare denial may not suffice where the fact lies within that party’s own knowledge. The Court scrutinises whether the dispute is real or merely raised to frustrate the application.
In what ways can a real dispute of fact arise? The Room Hire case identifies three: the respondent denies material allegations and leads contrary evidence or seeks to call witnesses; the respondent admits the applicant’s evidence but pleads other disputed facts; or the respondent, lacking knowledge of a material fact, denies it and puts the applicant to the proof. The respondent’s universal partnership defence fell within the first category.
Why did the applicant’s lack of candour count against him? Because his founding affidavit concealed the true nature of the relationship, he could not specify the date of the alleged tenancy agreement, he failed to dispute the 8 July 2022 occupation date, and he never explained the delay before demanding that the respondent vacate in June 2024. Taken together, these undermined the reliability of his version and reinforced the existence of a genuine dispute.
Why did the Court refer the matter for oral evidence rather than dismiss it under Rule 6(5)(g)? Rule 6(5)(g) gives the court a wide discretion to dismiss, hear oral evidence, or refer to trial, and the power to make any order that secures a just and expeditious outcome. Although the applicant should have anticipated the dispute and not proceeded by motion, the Court held that dismissal would carry serious consequences and would not serve the interests of justice, so it referred the limited issue of unlawful occupation for oral evidence, with Rule 35 discovery to apply and costs reserved.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg with consulting rooms in Cape Town, Paarl and and Melkbosstrand, he is the founder of iDivorce and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here. For free and useful Family Law tech applications visit Maintenance Calculator and Accrual Calculator.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: