“With a verbal agreement you have nothing but air.” (Author and entrepreneur Robert Ringer)
2026 opens with positive signals for our property market after last year’s encouraging GDP forecasts, a credit-rating upgrade, and a series of interest rate cuts boosting access to bond finance.
All the signs point to a promising year for buyers, sellers, and homeowners. But a recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment is a sharp reminder that getting the legalities wrong, and in particular trying to rely on verbal promises, could mean a very rocky start to your new year. It’s also a reminder that while co-ownership can be a practical way to access and share property, it must be properly structured. When relationships sour, the fallout – as this case aptly shows – can be severe.
One husband discovered all that the hard way, so let’s learn from his mistakes.
“You can’t evict me, I own half the house!”
The central feature of this unhappy tale is unfortunately an all too common one – a personal relationship gone horribly wrong.
A couple married in 2009 and jointly bought a house in 2015. When the husband hit financial trouble in 2017, and creditors threatened to attach his half share, the couple agreed that the wife would buy him out for R1.2 million. A written Deed of Sale was signed, the transfer went through, and she became the registered sole owner. Unsurprisingly, given the purpose of the sale and transfer, she never actually paid him the R1.2 million purchase price.
When the marriage hit the rocks in 2019, she moved out and he stayed on. They divorced but he refused to vacate, arguing that the Deed of Transfer did not reflect their “true intention”. This, he claimed, was for him to remain a co-owner “until it was less risky”, after which she would give him back his half share.
The dispute landed in the SCA, where the ex-wife insisted that the intention was always that the property would be hers alone.
The SCA held that ownership is a question of law, not a factual dispute to be resolved by choosing between different versions of a story. The Court found that the ex-wife remained the sole owner, and its reasons for doing so provide a clear checklist of principles that every buyer, seller, and property owner should keep in mind.
What the ex-husband got wrong, and how to get it right
Let’s discuss the legal principles that sank the ex-husband’s case:
- Don’t rely on a verbal agreement: Although our law makes most verbal contracts binding, there are exceptions. One is that any agreement to sell, exchange, donate, or transfer land (or a right to claim transfer) must be in writing and signed to be valid. That includes any “side deals” intended to vary the terms of the sale agreement. So, even if the Court had accepted the ex-husband’s version, a verbal promise to “give back” a half share would have been void and unenforceable.
- Make sure your sale agreement is crystal clear: The Court also found the alleged verbal agreement to be “fatally vague” – a poignant reminder to always record agreements with enough detail to avoid them being struck down as “void for vagueness”.
- A non-variation clause is essential: Contracts should state that they may not be changed unless the variation is in writing and signed. This is a great way to protect against uncertainty and dispute. The Deed of Sale here contained such a clause, which made the husband’s purported verbal amendment ineffective. There’s a lesson for us all here: never accept verbal assurances or promises from the other party, always insist on them being properly incorporated into the sale agreement in writing.
- The value of a “whole agreement” clause: This clause confirms that the written contract reflects the entire agreement. With it in place, no outside evidence can contradict or add to the document – yet another reason the ex-husband found no joy at the SCA. Make sure that your written sale agreement is comprehensive, with nothing important omitted!
- On transfer, “intention to pass ownership” is binding and motivation is irrelevant: The couple in this case transferred ownership intentionally and deliberately, and their personal motives for doing so were irrelevant. Equally irrelevant was the fact that the wife never actually paid the husband the purchase price – all that counted was the intentional transfer of ownership.
Complying with all legal formalities is important whether you are a buyer, a seller or an owner. As always, sign nothing without our advice!
Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.
© LawDotNews
