Kelsey NO and Another v de Hart (3921/2016) [2020] ZAFSHC 2; [2020] 1 All SA 808 (FB) (23 January 2020)

Kelsey NO and Another v de Hart (3921/2016) [2020] ZAFSHC 2; [2020] 1 All SA 808 (FB) (23 January 2020)

The court found that no binding oral agreement was concluded on 4 September 2013 permitting the defendant to remain on the farm rent-free. The evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses was accepted as credible and consistent, while the defendant's version was found to be improbable and unsupported by contemporaneous correspondence. The trust deed required trustees to act jointly, and there was no authority or representation by both trustees to bind the trust to the alleged agreement. The trust was not a fideicommissum, and the trustees were not obliged to drill new boreholes or effect improvements at the trust's expense. The defendant's continued occupation after expiry of the lease...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 2
Parties
Plaintiff: Brigitte Kelsey N.O.; Plaintiff: Elsie Jacoba Jacomina Carolina de Hart N.O.; Defendant: Charl de Hart
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 January 2020
Case Number
3921/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs succeed; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Judges
Meintjes
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Holding Over, Market Rental Value, Trust Law, Fiduciary Duties
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Agreement Holding Over Market Rental Value Trust Law Fiduciary Duties

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

Parties

Brigitte Kelsey N.O.

Plaintiff

Elsie Jacoba Jacomina Carolina de Hart N.O.

Plaintiff

Charl de Hart

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding oral agreement was concluded on 4 September 2013 permitting the defendant to remain on the farm without paying rent until water issues were resolved.
  2. 2 Whether the trustees were obliged to drill new boreholes and effect improvements at the trust's expense.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's continued occupation after expiry of the lease constituted unlawful holding over and entitled the plaintiffs to damages and ejectment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no binding oral agreement was concluded on 4 September 2013 permitting the defendant to remain on the farm rent-free. The evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses was accepted as credible and consistent, while the defendant's version was found to be improbable and unsupported by contemporaneous correspondence. The trust deed required trustees to act jointly, and there was no authority or representation by both trustees to bind the trust to the alleged agreement. The trust was not a fideicommissum, and the trustees were not obliged to drill new boreholes or effect improvements at the trust's expense. The defendant's continued occupation after expiry of the lease...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs succeed; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages representing market rental value for the periods 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2014 (R59,864.00), 1 September 2014 to 31 August 2015 (R63,719.00), and 1 September 2015 to 31 August 2016 (R66,779.95), totaling R190,362.95 (excluding VAT).
  • Defendant is ejected from the farm Middelwater in respect of his farming activities (excluding workers).