Robert Mandlakayise Du Plooy and Another v Ntombi Christophora Du Plooy and Others

The dispute concerned ownership of two immovable properties (erven 17874 and 17875, Emmaus, Pinetown) allocated in the early 1990s by the Marianhill Mission Institute to the Du Plooy family as part of a relocation scheme. The houses were allocated to families, not individuals, and the Du Plooy family received two adjacent four-roomed houses to replace an earlier eight-roomed family home. At the time of allocation, the first appellant, Robert Du Plooy, was absent. Keys were handed to another sibling, Raymond Du Plooy, on behalf of the family. After Raymond’s death in 1995, the family nominated Robert as their representative to look after family interests. In 1996, title deeds were registered in Robert’s name. He later sold one property to the second appellant, Victor Zikole, without the consent of his siblings. The respondents alleged that Robert held the properties as nominee for the family and lacked authority to alienate them. The appellants led no oral evidence at trial.

The appeal succeeded in part. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the High Court order (which declared co-ownership and directed registration accordingly) were set aside. The appellants were ordered jointly and severally to pay the respondents’ costs.

The case clarifies the distinction between co-ownership and holding property as a nominee or representative in South African property law. It underscores that registration of title is not conclusive of beneficial ownership where evidence shows a trust or mandate. The judgment also emphasises limits on the application of customary law and the duties of nominees holding property on behalf of family members.