Jordan and Another v Farber (1352/09) [2009] ZANCHC 81 (15 December 2009)

Jordan and Another v Farber (1352/09) [2009] ZANCHC 81 (15 December 2009)

The court found that the lease agreements were void ab initio as they were contrary to public policy, given the respondent's conflict of interest and breach of professional ethics in failing to advise the applicants to seek independent legal advice. The respondent's conduct was found to be disgraceful and unfair, and the applicants were in a vulnerable bargaining position. Furthermore, there was no consensus on material terms, specifically the rental amount, and the respondent failed to perform in terms of the contracts. The written agreements were conclusive, and the respondent was precluded from varying them by oral evidence. The contracts were validly cancelled, and the applicants were...

Citation
[2009] ZANCHC 81
Parties
Applicant: James Andrew Jordan; Applicant: June Agnes Jordan; Respondent: Christo Dirk Farber
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2009
Case Number
1352/09
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Lease agreements declared void or cancelled. Eviction and costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
G N Z Mjali
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement Validity, Conflict of Interest, Public Policy Contracts, Professional Ethics Attorneys, Eviction, Contract Consensus
Civil Procedure Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Lease Agreement Validity Conflict of Interest Public Policy Contracts Professional Ethics Attorneys Eviction +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Andrew Jordan

Applicant

June Agnes Jordan

Applicant

Christo Dirk Farber

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreements between the applicants and respondent are void or cancelled due to conflict of interest and public policy violations.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent, as attorney, breached professional ethics by failing to advise his clients to seek independent legal advice.
  3. 3 Whether there was consensus between the parties on material terms of the lease agreements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the lease agreements were void ab initio as they were contrary to public policy, given the respondent's conflict of interest and breach of professional ethics in failing to advise the applicants to seek independent legal advice. The respondent's conduct was found to be disgraceful and unfair, and the applicants were in a vulnerable bargaining position. Furthermore, there was no consensus on material terms, specifically the rental amount, and the respondent failed to perform in terms of the contracts. The written agreements were conclusive, and the respondent was precluded from varying them by oral evidence. The contracts were validly cancelled, and the applicants were...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Lease agreements declared void or cancelled. Eviction and costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • The lease agreements between the first applicant and the respondent, annexures B and C, are declared void alternatively cancelled.
  • The respondent and any member of his family living with him at Portion 7 of Weltevrede farm no. 92 in the district of Herbert must vacate the premises with their belongings within 1 month of this order.