Meyer en Andere v Roux en 'n Ander (37719/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 327 (27 November 2007)
- Citation
- [2007] ZAGPHC 327
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- Fabricius
- Case number
- 37719/2007
More details
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- Fabricius
- Case number
- 37719/2007
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the clause in the settlement agreement entitling the applicants to a share of the net proceeds from the sale of the property is a 'debt' arising from a court order and thus prescribes only after 30 years in terms of section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription Act. The defence of prescription raised by the first respondent was rejected. The clause is not contra bones mores, nor have the applicants waived their rights under the agreement. Accordingly, the relief sought by the applicants was granted, and the counter-application was dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
Application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Prayers 1.1 to 1.6 and prayer 2 of the notice of motion are granted.
- The counter-application is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
A. Meyer
ApplicantF.F. Meyer
ApplicantM. Meyer
ApplicantC.M. Roux
RespondentJ.G. Meyer
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants' claim to enforce the settlement agreement clause has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
- 02
Whether the clause in the settlement agreement is contra bones mores or unenforceable.
- 03
Whether the applicants have waived their rights under the agreement.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the relevant clause in the settlement agreement, which entitles them to a share of the net proceeds from the sale of the property should the first respondent remarry or cohabit, constitutes a 'debt' arising from a court order. Therefore, in terms of section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription Act, the claim only prescribes after 30 years. They further submitted that the clause is not contra bones mores and that they have not waived their rights under the agreement.
- Respondent
- The first respondent contended that, based on the applicants' own version, the claim has prescribed, taking into account their minority status, one year after such limitation ceased. The respondent relied on section 11 of the Prescription Act, 68 of 1969, and argued that the applicants became aware of the agreement before their father's death, and thus the claim is time-barred. The respondent also raised, but did not pursue, other defences except prescription.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Prescription Act 68 of 1969
A debt arising from a court order prescribes only after 30 years in terms of section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription Act.
- 02
Primavare Construction SA v Government North West Province & Another 2003 (3) SA 579 (B)
A clause in a settlement agreement that is not related to maintenance is a 'debt' within the meaning of section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription Act.
- 03
Barkhuizen v Napier [2007] ZACC 5; 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC)
A contractual clause is not contra bones mores unless it is contrary to public policy or morality.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the clause in the settlement agreement entitling the applicants to a share of the net proceeds from the sale of the property is a 'debt' arising from a court order and thus prescribes only after 30 years in terms of section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription Act. The defence of prescription raised by the first respondent was rejected. The clause is not contra bones mores, nor have the applicants waived their rights under the agreement. Accordingly, the relief sought by the applicants was granted, and the counter-application was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The clause in question is not related to maintenance and does not offend public policy.
- There is no evidence that the applicants have waived their rights under the agreement.
Court disposition
Application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.
- Prayers 1.1 to 1.6 and prayer 2 of the notice of motion are granted.
- The counter-application is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
High Courts - Gauteng
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Courts - Gauteng
Judgment
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(TRANSVAALSE PROVINSIALE AFDELlNG)
DATUM: 27/11/2007
SAAKNOMMER: 37719/2007
In die saak tussen:
A. MEYER 1Ste Applikant
F.F. MEYER 2De Applikant
M MEYER 3De Applikant
en
C.M. ROUX 1Ste Respondent
J.G. MEYER 2De Respondent
UITSPRAAK
FABRICIUS: WR
1 . Die applikante en tweede respondent is kinders gebore uit die huwelik van JG Meyer en eerste respondent wat op 23 Mei 1007 ontbind is. 'n Skikkingsooreenkoms is deel van die hofbevel gemaak en vir huidige doeleindes haal ek net paragraaf 4.5 daarvan aan:
"Die partye kom voorts met mekaar ooreen dat indien verweerderes die eiendom wat sy verkies aan te koop op enige stadium in die toekoms sou verkoop, dan sal die netto opbrengs van die verkoopprys in gelyke dele aan die kinders gebore uit die huwelik tussen eiser en verweerderes betaal word. Vir die doel bepaal die partye verder dat indien verweerderes sou hertrou of in ân saambly verhouding met in ander man as man en vrou sou woon, die eiendom onmiddellik in die mark geplaas en te koop aangebied sal word vir die bes bekombare prys."
2. Die eerste respondent het weer in die huwelik getree op 6 September 1997. Die eerste tot derde applikante het 'n aansoek geloots wat in wese daarop neerkom vir 'n bevel dat die tersaaklike klousule afgedwing word. Eerste respondent het 'n teenaansoek ingestel. Ek is meegedeel dat die eerste applikant 26 jaar oud is, die tweede applikant 24 jaar oud is en die derde applikant 19 jaar oud is. Die applikante se vader is oorlede op 7 Augustus 2005. Hulle beweer dat na hulle vader se dood hulle vir die eerste keer bewus geword het van die skikkingsakte en tersaaklike korrespondensie. Die eerste applikant beweer egter ook dat sy omtrent ses maande voor haar vader se dood kennis van die betrokke ooreenkoms gehad het. Geeneen van 'n aantal verwere geopper deur die eerste respondent is met erns by die aanhoor van die verrigtinge mee voortgegaan nie (en tereg so) behalwe die aspek van verjaring.
3. Namens eerste respondent is betoog dat op die applikante se eie weergawe die eis verjaar het (met inagneming van die applikante se minderjarige status) een jaar nadat sodanige beperking nie meer bestaan het nie. Daar is verwys na artikel 11 van die Verjaringswet, 68 van 1969. In hierdie konteks is namens die applikante betoog dat artikel 11 (a)(ii) van genoemde Wet inderdaad van toepassing gesien in die Jig van die feit dat die "skuld" een is wat ingevolge 'n hofbevel ontstaan het. In so 'n geval verjaar so 'n eis eers na 30 jaar. Ek is in die verband verwys na Primavare Construction SA v Government North West Province & Another 2003 (3) SA 579 (B). Sien ook Jordan & Co Ltd v Bulsara 1992 (4) SA 457 (E) 464F-G.
4. Die tersaaklike klousule is onverwant aan enige onderhoudsbepaling en is myns insiens 'n "skuld" binne die raamwerk van artikel 11 (a)(ii) van die Verjaringswet. Myns insiens is daar dus geen meriete in eerste respondent se betoog in hierdie verband nie.
5. Volledigheidshalwe mag ek net me Id dat genoemde klousule myns insiens ook nie contra bones mores is nie, en dat daar geen sprake daarvan kan wees dat die applikante afstand gedoen het van hulle regte ingevolge die ooreenkoms nie. Wat betref eersgenoemde aspek wil ek net verwys na Barkhuizen v Napier [2007] ZACC 5; 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC) paragrawe 100 - 104 en veral paragraaf 104.
6. Met inagneming van bogenoemde word bedes 1.1 tot 1.6 en bede 2 toegestaan, en word die teenaansoek van die hand gewys met koste.
GETEKEN te PRETORIA op hierdie 23ste dag van NOVEMBER 2007.
-----------------------------------------
HJ
FABRICIUS
WAARNEMENDE
REGTER VAN DIE
HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(TRANSVAALSE PROVINSIALE AFDELlNG)
DATUM VAN ARGUMENT: 22 NOVEMBER 2007
DATUM VAN UITSPRAAK: 27 NOVEMBER 2007
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.