Ruth Eunice Sechoaro v Patience Kgwadi

The respondent, Ms Patience Kgwadi, and her ex-husband, Mr Israel Kgwadi (the deceased), were married in community of property and divorced in 1991. Their settlement agreement did not deal with a jointly owned immovable property in Boksburg, and they verbally agreed that each would be entitled to half its value, with Mr Kgwadi to pay the respondent her share. He never did. In 2012, while the respondent was hospitalised and recovering from serious injuries, a document styled as a ‘variation agreement’ was presented to her for signature. Unbeknown to her, it purported to transfer her entire 50% share in the property to Mr Kgwadi for no value. She signed it under the mistaken belief that it accorded with their earlier agreement. Mr Kgwadi later died, and during the administration of his estate the respondent was informed that she was not entitled to any proceeds from the sale of the property. She challenged the enforceability of the 2012 agreement. The High Court found the agreement unenforceable, and the applicant (the deceased’s surviving spouse) sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Paragraph 2 of the High Court’s order was corrected to direct the transferring attorneys to pay the respondent 50% of the proceeds of the sale of the property. Save for this correction, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case reaffirms South African contract law principles on unilateral mistake (justus error), particularly in circumstances where an agreement is wholly inconsistent with prior arrangements and where the other party knew or caused the mistake. It underscores the narrow circumstances in which apparent contractual assent may be repudiated and clarifies that courts may resolve such disputes on affidavit where no real dispute of fact exists.