KEY POINTS
- A Johannesburg couple must pay back R1, 7 million to a woman from the United Kingdom for a farm deal.
- The court further concluded that the settlement agreement remains effective even with the appeal of the couple.
- On their ability, the judge dismissed their allegations of influence and lawful misconceptions.
A South Gauteng High Court decision implemented a settlement which resolved that one couple from Johannesburg, namely Fredrich van Dyk and Chris Avril Stuart should return more than 1.7 million US dollars to a woman from United Kingdom, Teresa May Rhodes, over a disputed farm purchase.
They have also tried to withdraw the 2019 adoption that ordering the repayment is possible, but presently, they remain obligated towards the debt.
Dispute over farm purchase and loan repayment
Rhodes moved to South Africa after she had met Van Dyk through an online poker event. After visiting them, she joined them and made cash contributions of more than R1.7 million for the purchase of the farm. The farm is near Krugersdorp, with the property registered under the names of Van Dyk and Stuart.
In the same year, Rhodes moved into the couple’s residence but later had a disagreement and moved back to the UK in 2019. She then wants to be paid back the money which she claims to have borrowed with intention of paying back.
Nevertheless, according to Van Dyk and Stuart, the money was a present. However, through due legal action, the couple agreed to indemnify the lost amount plus interest in May 2019 as captured in the settlement agreement. On the September 2, 2019, it was testified by a judge as a court order.
Court ruled debt liability
They defaulted on payments and moved to another area to avoid offering payments to Rhodes; hence, they faced sequestration by the court. In August 2023, Van Dyk and Stuart tried to set aside the order stating that the specific judge does not have the authority to enforce the agreement.
Judge Stuart David James Wilson dismissed argumentative materials thus rejecting their appeal. He pointed out that the settlement agreement was still enforceable notwithstanding the existence or prior litigation.
He also dismissed their allegations of ‘coercion’ and stated that even if the court order setting it aside, the two were still bound to pay Rhodes in accordance to the original agreement.
Thus, the court dismissed the application with costs to stress that Van Dyk and Stuart will have to pay the money to Rhodes.
