Slabbert v Du Plessis (A5052/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 190 (3 June 2019)

Slabbert v Du Plessis (A5052/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 190 (3 June 2019)

The court found that the transaction between the parties was part of the fraudulent Brusson scheme and therefore invalid. Ownership of the immovable property never lawfully passed from the respondent to the appellant. Any subsequent oral agreement was also invalid as it did not comply with the Alienation of Land Act, which requires written agreements for the sale of land. The appellant's reliance on estoppel was rejected, as the law does not permit the validation of an unlawful transaction through estoppel. The court held that the respondent was entitled to restitution of her property and that the punitive costs order was justified due to the appellant's frivolous and meritless opposition...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 190
Parties
Appellant: Kelly Antoinette Slabbert; Respondent: Susanna Lucia Maria Du Plessis
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2019
Case Number
A5052/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Costs Order of the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
B Wanless, K E Matojane, G Wright
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Property Transfer, Alienation of Land Act, Invalid Contract, Estoppel, Punitive Costs
Land and Property Civil Procedure Fraudulent Property Transfer Alienation of Land Act Invalid Contract Estoppel Punitive Costs

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

Parties

Kelly Antoinette Slabbert

Appellant

Susanna Lucia Maria Du Plessis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Costs Order of the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of ownership of immovable property under the Brusson scheme was valid or tainted by fraud.
  2. 2 Whether an alleged subsequent oral agreement between the parties could novate or validate the original invalid transaction.
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of estoppel could be relied upon to uphold an unlawful transaction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the transaction between the parties was part of the fraudulent Brusson scheme and therefore invalid. Ownership of the immovable property never lawfully passed from the respondent to the appellant. Any subsequent oral agreement was also invalid as it did not comply with the Alienation of Land Act, which requires written agreements for the sale of land. The appellant's reliance on estoppel was rejected, as the law does not permit the validation of an unlawful transaction through estoppel. The court held that the respondent was entitled to restitution of her property and that the punitive costs order was justified due to the appellant's frivolous and meritless opposition...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the scale of attorney and client.