Meyer en Andere v Roux en 'n Ander (37719/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 327 (27 November 2007)

Meyer en Andere v Roux en 'n Ander (37719/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 327 (27 November 2007)

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.

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 327
Parties
Applicant: A. Meyer; Applicant: F.F. Meyer; Applicant: M. Meyer; Respondent: C.M. Roux; Respondent: J.G. Meyer
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2007
Case Number
37719/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Fabricius
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Settlement Agreement, Prescription Periods, Bones Mores, Maintenance and Property Orders
Family and Children Civil Procedure Enforcement of Settlement Agreement Prescription Periods Bones Mores Maintenance and Property Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Meyer

Applicant

F.F. Meyer

Applicant

M. Meyer

Applicant

C.M. Roux

Respondent

J.G. Meyer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' claim to enforce the settlement agreement clause has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the clause in the settlement agreement is contra bones mores or unenforceable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have waived their rights under the agreement.

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.

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.