Gauteng couple ordered to repay UK woman R1.7 million for a farm she purchased

A South African couple's legal manoeuvre to evade repaying over R1.7 million to a woman from the United Kingdom (UK) has faltered, after the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg upheld a settlement agreement they had originally reached in 2019.

The ruling followed an application for rescission brought by the Johannesburg couple, Fredrich van Dyk and Chris Avril Stuart, who were locked in a dispute with Teresa May Rhodes over a farm she purchased after moving to SA.

Rhodes moved to SA after she met Van Dyk on an online poker tournament and their friendship blossomed.

Before relocating, she visited the couple and enjoyed her stay, leading her to relocate permanently.

Upon her return, she gave the couple over R1.7 million towards a purchase of a farm near Krugersdorp which was subsequently registered in the couple's names.

From 2013 to 2019, she lived with them on the farm, but she had a fallout with the couple and decided to return to her home country. Rhodes also sought repayment of the money asserting that it was a loan.

The couple denied that the money was a loan and insisted it was a gift. However, Rhodes engaged services of a lawyer, and the couple signed a settlement agreement in May 2019, which obligated them to repay over R1.7 million.

The agreement stipulated that the amount should be settled by end of May 2022, accruing five percent interest from beginning of June 2020, with a provision for statutory mora interest in the case of default.

Subsequent to that, Rhodes instituted an application to have the agreement made an order of court. A judge made the settlement agreement an order of court on September 2, 2019.

However, the couple failed to honour the repayments. Rhodes sought legal recourse and applied for their sequestration.

After four years, in August 2023, Van Dyk and Stuart sought to rescind the order that was made in September 2019.

Their rescission application was dismissed in June 2024. The judge said the couple's explanation for their four-year delay in bringing the rescission application was “hopelessly inadequate”.

They took the matter on appeal and it was heard by Judge Stuart David James Wilson.

The couple's argument was that the first judge who made the agreement into an order, had no power to make it, as a result, his order must be set aside.

They argued that for a settlement agreement to be made between the parties, there must have been preceding litigation on the settled issues.

Moreover, they said there were no summons from Rhodes, prescription of the loan repayment claim, and they further claimed that they suffered undue influence from Rhode's attorney.

However, Judge Wilson dismissed their arguments stating that the arguments they raised were very weak.

"The prescription argument is a red herring. Whether or not Ms. Rhodes’ claim prescribed, the agreement to repay the loan embodied in the settlement agreement constitutes a separate and free-standing basis on which the appellants (couple) are liable to her.

"The undue influence point is likewise stillborn. The mere fact that the appellants may subjectively have felt intimidated by the attorney does not mean that they signed the agreement under undue influence," said the judge.

The judge added that even if the judge's order was set-aside, it still doesn't absolve the couple from the debt as per the agreement they signed with Rhodes.

The application was dismissed with costs.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.