Breaking up is hard enough. Breaking up when you both signed a 20-year bond is harder — and many South African co-buyers do not realise the law gives either partner a way out.
A Western Cape High Court judgment, Jackson v Petersen and Others (Case No 2025-060824, decided on 27 May 2026 and analysed in legal and property media this month), has reaffirmed a foundational principle of South African property law: co-ownership is not a life sentence.
The case
Lana Jackson and Ray Petersen were in a romantic relationship when, in December 2010, they bought a home together in Zonnendal, Kraaifontein, registered in their names in equal shares and financed with a home loan of R711,000 from Standard Bank. The relationship ended in mid-2023. Jackson moved out with the couple's minor child and began servicing the bond; Petersen stayed in the house but had no fixed employment and no finance of his own. A June 2024 market valuation put the property at roughly R2.1 million, and by March 2025 only about R35,900 was left outstanding on the bond.
Critically, in November 2024 the parties signed a settlement agreement: both would try to obtain finance, and the first party to secure a bond would be entitled to buy the other's 50% share at market value. In January 2025 Jackson obtained a pre-approved bond of R1,050,000 and made the offer. Petersen never obtained finance — he simply asked for more time, contrary to the agreement.
The ruling
Acting Judge Mapoma held that the couple's co-ownership was "free" co-ownership — unlike marriage in community of property, a romantic relationship creates no underlying legal bond that traps co-owners together — so the actio communi dividundo, the Roman-Dutch remedy for ending co-ownership, could be invoked. Because Jackson was the bond-paying, employed custodial parent, and the party who had actually obtained finance per the settlement agreement, it was just and equitable for her to retain the property: she must pay Petersen a market-related price for his half-share and cover the transfer and registration costs. The court added a practical safeguard — if she cannot complete the transfer within three months, the property must be sold on the open market and the proceeds split equally.
Why it matters if you co-own a bond
Unmarried couples, friends and family members buying together are a growing part of the South African market, precisely because one income often can't buy a home alone — our guide to joint home loans covers how the application side works. This judgment confirms two things every joint applicant should internalise. First, exit is always legally possible — no ex-partner can hold you hostage in a co-ownership you no longer want. Second, the bank remains fully entitled to its money from both of you until the bond is settled, the property sold, or one party takes transfer under a new bond. Moving out does not move you off the loan. That is why the party keeping the home must qualify for a bond big enough to settle the existing bond and pay out the departing partner — exactly the financing hurdle that decided Jackson v Petersen.
What to watch next
The decision follows a string of recent cases extending protection to unmarried life partners, and courts are clearly willing to enforce sensible private agreements ("first to finance buys the other out"). If you are buying with someone you are not married to, put that agreement in writing before transfer — covering contributions, occupation, bond servicing, and the exit mechanism. If you are already stuck in a broken co-ownership, this case shows the courts will act — but the process took just over a year from application to judgment.
Case figures quoted from the SAFLII-published judgment in Jackson v Petersen & Others (2025-060824) [2026] ZAWCHC (27 May 2026), verified against the full text on 9 September 2026. No rate, fee or lender figures appear in this piece.