Eksteen v De Villiers and Another (22293/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 379 (8 September 2011)

Eksteen v De Villiers and Another (22293/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 379 (8 September 2011)

The court found that the applicant did not hold the Coghill property as nominee for Leif Vestrum, based on the close family bond and the intention for the applicant to be the couple's heir. The evidence showed that the property was registered in the applicant's name to avoid transfer after the Vestrums' deaths. The first respondent's denial of family ties was rejected as opportunistic. Regarding waiver, the court held that Leif's conduct, including his reluctance to pay transfer duty and his subsequent actions, amounted to a waiver of any rights to the Coghill property. On the enrichment claim, the court found that the applicant was not enriched at Leif's expense, given the particular...

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 379
Parties
Applicant: Errol Eksteen; Respondent: Maurina De Villiers; Respondent: Stephanus Andries Daniel Du Toit N.O.
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2011
Case Number
22293/2010
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Baartman
Legal Topics
Nominee Ownership, Waiver of Rights, Unjust Enrichment
Civil Procedure Land and Property Nominee Ownership Waiver of Rights Unjust Enrichment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Errol Eksteen

Applicant

Maurina De Villiers

Respondent

Stephanus Andries Daniel Du Toit N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant held the Coghill property as nominee for Leif Vestrum.
  2. 2 Whether Leif Vestrum waived his rights in respect of the Coghill property.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was unjustly enriched at the expense of Leif Vestrum.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not hold the Coghill property as nominee for Leif Vestrum, based on the close family bond and the intention for the applicant to be the couple's heir. The evidence showed that the property was registered in the applicant's name to avoid transfer after the Vestrums' deaths. The first respondent's denial of family ties was rejected as opportunistic. Regarding waiver, the court held that Leif's conduct, including his reluctance to pay transfer duty and his subsequent actions, amounted to a waiver of any rights to the Coghill property. On the enrichment claim, the court found that the applicant was not enriched at Leif's expense, given the particular...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs occasioned by the employment of senior counsel are not allowed.