South Gauteng High Court Rejects Couple’s Attempt to Evade R1.7 Million Debt

A Johannesburg couple’s attempt to avoid repaying more than R1.7 million to a UK woman has been dismissed by the South Gauteng High Court. The ruling upheld a settlement agreement the couple had signed in 2019.

Fredrich van Dyk and Chris Avril Stuart had sought to overturn the court order compelling them to repay Teresa May Rhodes, who had given them money for a farm purchase near Krugersdorp.

Rhodes met Van Dyk during an online poker tournament, and their friendship led her to visit South Africa. She later decided to relocate permanently and contributed R1.7 million towards buying the farm, which was registered under the couple’s names.

She lived with them on the farm between 2013 and 2019 but returned to the UK after a fallout. Rhodes then demanded repayment, arguing that the money was a loan, while the couple insisted it was a gift.

After engaging a lawyer, Rhodes secured a settlement agreement in May 2019, which required the couple to repay the amount by May 2022, with interest accruing from June 2020. The agreement also allowed for statutory mora interest in case of default.

A judge made the agreement a court order on September 2, 2019. However, the couple failed to repay the money, prompting Rhodes to seek their sequestration.

In August 2023, Van Dyk and Stuart applied to have the 2019 court order rescinded. However, their application was dismissed in June 2024 due to their “hopelessly inadequate” explanation for the delay.

They then appealed, arguing that the judge who made the settlement a court order lacked the authority to do so. They also claimed that no summons had been issued, that the debt claim had prescribed, and that they had signed the agreement under undue influence from Rhodes’ lawyer.

Judge Stuart David James Wilson rejected their arguments, stating that the prescription claim was irrelevant since the settlement agreement was a binding contract. He also dismissed the undue influence claim, saying that feeling intimidated by a lawyer did not constitute coercion.

Even if the original court order was overturned, the couple would still be liable under the signed agreement. The court dismissed their application with costs.

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com