Hageman NO and Another v Wilgeheuwel Aftree-oord (Pty) Ltd (2020/22358) [2021] ZAGPJHC 102 (27 July 2021)

Hageman NO and Another v Wilgeheuwel Aftree-oord (Pty) Ltd (2020/22358) [2021] ZAGPJHC 102 (27 July 2021)

The court found that the defendant failed to disclose any bona fide defence to the claim as required by rule 32(3)(b). The technical and jurisdictional objections raised by the defendant were abandoned or found to be without merit. The defendant's assertion that Belvedere was liable was unsupported by the agreement, which clearly placed the repayment obligation on Wilgeheuwel. The evidence showed that the conditions for repayment, including the finding of a replacement occupant, were met. The defendant's opposition was based on bare denials and contrived arguments, and did not raise any real issue for trial. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favour of the applicant for the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 102
Parties
Plaintiff: Johanna Catharina Sophia Hageman NO; Defendant: Wilgeheuwel Aftree-oord (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 July 2021
Case Number
2020/22358
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Life Right Agreement, Liquidated Demand, Contractual Obligation, Termination of Agreement
Civil Procedure Land and Property Summary Judgment Life Right Agreement Liquidated Demand Contractual Obligation Termination of Agreement

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johanna Catharina Sophia Hageman NO

Plaintiff

Wilgeheuwel Aftree-oord (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has disclosed fully the nature and grounds of its defence as required by rule 32(3)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the defendant owes the claimed amount to the plaintiff under the terminated life right agreement.
  3. 3 Whether technical and jurisdictional objections raised by the defendant constitute a bona fide defence to the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to disclose any bona fide defence to the claim as required by rule 32(3)(b). The technical and jurisdictional objections raised by the defendant were abandoned or found to be without merit. The defendant's assertion that Belvedere was liable was unsupported by the agreement, which clearly placed the repayment obligation on Wilgeheuwel. The evidence showed that the conditions for repayment, including the finding of a replacement occupant, were met. The defendant's opposition was based on bare denials and contrived arguments, and did not raise any real issue for trial. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favour of the applicant for the...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay Johanna Catharina Sophia Hageman NO, in her capacity as executrix of the deceased estates of Pieter van Rooyen and Yvonne van Rooyen, the sum of R747,458.00 plus interest at 7% per annum from 6 March 2019 to date of payment.
  • The defendant is directed to pay the costs of the action.