Lamprecht v Horn and Others (34672/18) [2022] ZAGPJHC 950 (29 November 2022)

Lamprecht v Horn and Others (34672/18) [2022] ZAGPJHC 950 (29 November 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for the relief claimed due to fundamental disputes of fact on the papers, lack of documentary evidence supporting his alleged contributions and co-ownership, and reliance on non-compliant affidavits and hearsay. The absence of written agreements and the fact that Eva remained married in community of property until her husband's death undermined the applicant's claims. The court held that the application should have been foreseen as incapable of resolution on affidavit and dismissed it with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 950
Parties
Applicant: Lutz Lamprecht; Respondent: Caprice Horn N.O.; Respondent: Caprice Horn; Respondent: Gerhardus Johannes Botha; Respondent: The Master of the High Court; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds, JHB
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2022
Case Number
34672/18
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mudau
Legal Topics
Intestate Succession, Permanent Life Partnership, Universal Partnership, Dispute of Fact, Alienation of Land Act, Costs Order
Family and Children Land and Property Civil Procedure Intestate Succession Permanent Life Partnership Universal Partnership Dispute of Fact Alienation of Land Act +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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lutz Lamprecht

Applicant

Caprice Horn N.O.

Respondent

Caprice Horn

Respondent

Gerhardus Johannes Botha

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds, JHB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's relationship with the deceased constituted a permanent life-partnership akin to marriage for purposes of the Intestate Succession Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a declaratory order and ancillary relief based on the alleged partnership.
  3. 3 Whether the application can be resolved on affidavit or is precluded by serious disputes of fact.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for the relief claimed due to fundamental disputes of fact on the papers, lack of documentary evidence supporting his alleged contributions and co-ownership, and reliance on non-compliant affidavits and hearsay. The absence of written agreements and the fact that Eva remained married in community of property until her husband's death undermined the applicant's claims. The court held that the application should have been foreseen as incapable of resolution on affidavit and dismissed it with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.