A South African couple's attempt to avoid repaying R1.7 million to a UK woman for a farm purchase has backfired after the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg upholds the original settlement agreement.
The court dismissed a rescission application from Fredrich van Dyk and Chris Avril Stuart, who are embroiled in a payment dispute involving Teresa May Rhodes. Van Dyk met Rhodes in 2010 during an online poker tournament. Despite living on opposite sides of the world, Van Dyk in South Africa and Rhodes in the United Kingdom, they developed a close friendship. Rhodes affectionately called Van Dyk her "boytjie" and referred to herself as “Van Dyk's mom".
Their email correspondence revealed Rhodes' estrangement from her family and friends in the UK, leading to a deep connection with Van Dyk despite the geographical distance.
Following successful visits to South Africa, Rhodes developed plans to relocate and live with Van Dyk and Stuart on a farm near Krugersdorp. To facilitate this arrangement, Rhodes provided funds for the farm's purchase, which was registered in the couple's names.
Rhodes lived with the couple on the farm from 2013 to 2019. However, after six years of cohabitation, the relationship deteriorated, prompting Rhodes to return to the UK and seek repayment of what she maintained was a loan. Initially denying Rhodes' claims and insisting the money was a gift, the couple eventually signed a settlement agreement in May 2019. This agreement committed them to repay R1.735 million plus interest to prevent legal action from Rhodes.
The settlement terms required the capital amount to be paid by 31 May 2022, with 5% annual interest from 1 June 2020. In case of default, statutory mora interest would apply. The agreement included consent to make it a court order, which was sanctioned in September 2019.
The couple failed to honour the payment terms, leading Rhodes to apply for their sequestration. Nearly four years after the court order, in August 2023, Van Dyk and Stuart attempted to rescind it, claiming the money was a gift and that Rhodes had never issued a formal summons.
They presented three grounds for rescission: the lack of formal summons from Rhodes, prescription of the loan repayment claim, and alleged undue influence from Rhodes' attorney.
However, Judge SD Wilson firmly rejected the couple's arguments, emphasising that the signed agreement and subsequent court order effectively settled the loan versus gift debate. He noted that the four-year delay in seeking rescission was unjustifiable, and the absence of ongoing litigation did not warrant rescission. The judge further explained that the settlement agreement would prevent further litigation regardless of its status as a court order.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, reinforcing the binding nature of court orders and settlement agreements in South African law.
#Conviction
