R J v M J (2015/11549) [2018] ZAGPJHC 565 (17 October 2018)

R J v M J (2015/11549) [2018] ZAGPJHC 565 (17 October 2018)

The court held that nominee agreements regarding beneficial ownership of immovable property are recognised in South African law and do not require written form under section 2 of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. The proposed amendment to introduce the oral nominee agreement was therefore not bad in law. The court further found that the existence of a nominee agreement does not conflict with the antenuptial contract or the Matrimonial Property Act, as it merely identifies the true beneficial owner. The respondent's objection based on the applicant's prior statements was rejected, as such contradictions are matters for trial and do not preclude amendment at the pleading stage. The...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 565
Parties
Applicant: J, R; Respondent: J, M
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Case Number
2015/11549
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application to amend particulars of claim granted; costs to be in the cause.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property Act, Nominee Agreement, Alienation of Land Act, Oral Agreement, Amendment of Pleadings
Family and Children Land and Property Matrimonial Property Act Nominee Agreement Alienation of Land Act Oral Agreement Amendment of Pleadings

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J, R

Applicant

J, M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment to introduce an oral nominee agreement regarding ownership of immovable property is permissible.
  2. 2 Whether the oral agreement is invalid under section 2 of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.
  3. 3 Whether the nominee agreement conflicts with the antenuptial contract and the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that nominee agreements regarding beneficial ownership of immovable property are recognised in South African law and do not require written form under section 2 of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. The proposed amendment to introduce the oral nominee agreement was therefore not bad in law. The court further found that the existence of a nominee agreement does not conflict with the antenuptial contract or the Matrimonial Property Act, as it merely identifies the true beneficial owner. The respondent's objection based on the applicant's prior statements was rejected, as such contradictions are matters for trial and do not preclude amendment at the pleading stage. The...

Court Disposition

Application to amend particulars of claim granted; costs to be in the cause.

Orders

  • The application to amend is granted.
  • Costs are to be in the cause.