Monyela v Matlakola and Another (3157/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 220 (18 November 2025)

Case Note

Mondobya Phillip Monyela v Mpho Rachel Matlakola and Zebediela Ndebele Tribal Authority Council
Case No: 3157/2024
Date: 18 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its examination of co-ownership rights in property following the dissolution of a romantic relationship, incorporating aspects of familial law, property law, and the equitable considerations of shared ownership in the context of civil partnerships. The outcomes influence how the courts may address similar disputes, highlighting the balance between individual rights and the practical implications of orders regarding joint property ownership post-separation.

Cases Cited

1. Electrical Contractor's Association SA v Building Industries Federation SA 1980 (2) SA 516 (T)
2. Hattingh v Ngake 1966 (1) SA 64 (O)
3. National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA)
4. Naptosa and Others v Minister of Education, Western Cape, and Others 2001 (2) SA 112 (C)
5. Reinecke v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1974 (2) SA 84 (A)
6. Suid-Afrikaanse Onderlinge Brand - en Algemene Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Van den D Berg en 'n Ander 1976 (1) SA 602 (A)

Legislation Cited

• Section 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013

Rules of Court Cited

N/A

HEADNOTE

Summary

The High Court pronounced on an application regarding the co-ownership rights of property following the end of a romantic relationship. The Applicant sought a declaratory order to establish equal rights to a property located in Malatji Village. The Respondents contested this claim, leading to a comprehensive examination of the conditions under which such orders can be granted and the practical implications for the parties involved.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed included the determination of rights to property after the dissolution of a romantic relationship, the conditions required for declaratory relief, and the court's discretion in granting such relief amid complexities arising from personal relationships and disputes.

Held

The court ultimately dismissed the application for declaratory relief, finding that the necessary conditions for such an order were not met. The court concluded that the nature of the dispute did not warrant a declaratory order and noted significant issues surrounding practicality and potential prejudice to both parties.

THE FACTS

The Applicant, Mondobya Phillip Monyela, and the 1st Respondent, Mpho Rachel Matlakola, were previously in a romantic relationship and sought to obtain a property in Malatji Village. The stand was registered in the Applicant's name following an oral agreement that they would both co-own the property. However, a protection order had been issued against the Applicant, contributing to the complexity of the situation.

The 1st Respondent subsequently facilitated the registration of the property in her name for practical reasons, including accessing a housing subsidy. Tension arose as the 1st Respondent refused to vacate the property, leading to eviction proceedings initiated by the Applicant, claiming his legal standing. Discussions regarding occupancy culminated in a new Permission to Occupy (PTO) being issued in both their names.

The 1st Respondent contended that she had made significant financial contributions to the home, whereas the Applicant's claims were limited. The court was tasked with dissecting these assertions and determining the viability of the Applicant's claim for equal property rights.

THE ISSUES

The court had to resolve several legal questions: whether the parties still held joint rights to the property in question post-relationship, the appropriateness of seeking a declaratory order amid an ongoing factual dispute, and the implications of a previously issued protection order affecting the Applicant's capacity to assert his rights effectively.

ANALYSIS

In its reasoning, the court emphasized that obtaining a declaratory order requires clarity on existing rights and obligations. The court examined both parties' narratives and the various law precedents indicating that motion proceedings are unsuitable for resolving disputes reliant on factual disagreements. It concluded that an established precedent requires applications to reflect on clear legal rights rather than emotional and relational factors.

The court further noted that the considerable elapsed time since the parties' separation and the evolving individual circumstances underscored that the judicial mechanism would not satisfactorily resolve their grievances. Consequently, invoking a declaratory order was deemed inappropriate for addressing past events that had taken shape over time, favoring a corrective forward-looking resolution instead.

REMEDY

The court ordered the dismissal of the application for a declaratory order, ruling that the existing circumstances did not warrant such a remedy given the significance of unresolved personal dynamics between the parties.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case established that judicial discretion in granting declaratory relief relies on clearly articulated existing rights. It underscored the necessity for factual consensus and the risks associated with pursuing declaratory orders in the face of ongoing disputes. Moreover, it reinforced that practical resolutions to property coexistence issues following personal disputes may necessitate alternative routes rather than judicial declarations that do not resolve underlying issues.