The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) recently made a significant ruling in De Kock v Du Plessis and Others (284/2023) [2024] ZASCA 117 (24 July 2024), highlighting the intricate legal relationship between property law, contract law, and the application of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 as amended (“PIE Act”).
The PIE Act emphasises the necessity of a court order to carry out an eviction, ensuring that evictions are conducted in a fair and just manner. It also outlines the responsibilities of municipalities in the eviction process, particularly in providing alternative accommodation in some instances. Navigating through various oral agreements, especially within a family context (as this case illustrated), poses a complex consideration.
Background of the Case
In 2016, Mr de Kock bought a house from Mrs du Plessis for R4,500,000. He was married to the du Plessis’ daughter, Nicquelette, until her passing in September 2018. They had twins, a boy and a girl, who were 11 years old. Initially, Mr de Kock had a good relationship with his in-laws, who regarded him as their own son.
After the sale, a financial arrangement was made. Mrs du Plessis received R3,500,000 from the sale, and the remaining R2,500,000 was given to Mr de Kock as a loan. Additionally, an agreement allowed Mr and Mrs du Plessis to live on the property without paying rent until the loan was repaid.
However, the relationship between Mr de Kock and his in-laws started to deteriorate in mid-2019 over issues with Nicquelette’s estate and access to the twins.
The legal issues began when Mr de Kock stopped making payments on the loan, claiming that the loan agreement was invalid under the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 because Mrs du Plessis was not a registered credit provider. Tensions further escalated when Mr de Kock demanded that the du Plessis couple vacate the property, which they refused, leading to his application for their eviction under the PIE Act.
The High Court dismissed the eviction application, and on appeal, the full bench ruled that the loan agreement was valid and would continue until the amount owed was fully paid. It was determined that Mr de Kock’s attempted cancellation of the agreement did not end the arrangement for the du Plessis couple to occupy the property. Mr de Kock appealed this decision to the SCA.
The Ruling in the SCA
The main issues to be determined were:
- Whether the court of first instance and the full court erred by refusing to admit an affidavit.
- If the affidavit should have been allowed, what impact would it have on the defence presented by Mr and Mrs du Plessis in the Eviction (PIE) application?
- If it is found that their right to occupy the property was terminated due to Mrs du Plessis cancelling the oral agreement in the particulars of the claim, whether it is just and equitable to evict them in terms of the PIE Act.
In the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), the focus shifted to a crucial affidavit indicating that Mrs du Plessis had cancelled the oral agreement with Mr de Kock. This affidavit, which the High Court and full court initially dismissed, was deemed central by the SCA. In the present matter, Mrs du Plessis relied upon the composite agreement that she would lend money to Mr de Kock, which he agreed to. Mr de Kock agreed to let her occupy the property until the money was repaid in full. In other words, the property would only be restored to him once he had paid all the money loaned to him by Mrs du Plessis. By cancelling the contract, Mr and Mrs du Plessis unfortunately no longer enjoyed the contractual right to remain in occupation of the property. This finding disposes of the defense of lawful occupation.
The SCA determined that by cancelling the agreement, Mrs du Plessis forfeited her right to remain on the property.
The SCA found that the High Court had erred in its judgment by not considering this pivotal piece of evidence. As a result, the SCA upheld Mr de Kock’s appeal, finding that the du Plessis couple no longer had a contractual right to occupy the property.
Mr de Kock also offered to pay for the relocation costs. It is important to note that the du Plessis are an elderly couple who will not be rendered homeless should an eviction order be granted. Considering and balancing the interests of all the parties, an eviction order would be just and equitable.
The court ultimately decided that evicting the couple within three months, with the accommodation offer, was fair given the circumstances.
Conclusion
The case is a compelling example of how complex personal relationships and financial arrangements can lead to intricate legal battles. It reminds us of the necessity for thorough legal counsel and well-documented agreements in property transactions, especially between friends/family members. The outcome would ultimately have been very different had this been the case in this instance.
Contact an expert at SchoemanLaw Inc. today for assistance with your legal contractual needs, legal advice, property transactions or dispute resolution.
Recent Comments