Jones v Jones (2472/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 42 (16 August 2021)

Jones v Jones (2472/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 42 (16 August 2021)

The court found that the applicant's claim was not based on the divorce order or the old debts, but on a subsequent oral undertaking by the respondent to pay her 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the farm. The oral agreement only became enforceable when the farm was sold in 2020, and thus the debt had not prescribed. The respondent's defence of justus error and misrepresentation was rejected, as the evidence showed he made repeated undertakings to pay the applicant her share and was not misled by the applicant or her attorney. The quantification of the claim was accepted, as the respondent did not dispute the calculation provided by the applicant. The court ordered the respondent...

Citation
[2021] ZAECPEHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Ansu Jones; Respondent: Cecil Lewis Jones
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2021
Case Number
2472/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Gqamana
Legal Topics
Oral Agreement Enforcement, Prescription Act, Quantification of Claim, Divorce Settlement, Misrepresentation, Joint Ownership Intent
Civil Procedure Land and Property Oral Agreement Enforcement Prescription Act Quantification of Claim Divorce Settlement Misrepresentation Joint Ownership Intent

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ansu Jones

Applicant

Cecil Lewis Jones

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the farm based on an oral undertaking by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's defence of prescription and justus error is sustainable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's claim is properly quantified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim was not based on the divorce order or the old debts, but on a subsequent oral undertaking by the respondent to pay her 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the farm. The oral agreement only became enforceable when the farm was sold in 2020, and thus the debt had not prescribed. The respondent's defence of justus error and misrepresentation was rejected, as the evidence showed he made repeated undertakings to pay the applicant her share and was not misled by the applicant or her attorney. The quantification of the claim was accepted, as the respondent did not dispute the calculation provided by the applicant. The court ordered the respondent...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay to the applicant the amount of R977,000.00.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs of this application.