The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has called out an elaborate property scheme concocted by an estate agent to defraud his client, labelling his conduct “unconscionable” and a “devious scheme”.
On March 18, 2020, Jean Pierre Nortje was mandated by Catherine Judy Brown to sell her Sea Point, Cape Town, property, but instead of finding a genuine buyer, he orchestrated a complex ruse.
He presented his client with an offer from Groundswell Developments Africa, a company he solely owned, without disclosing his personal interest.
To exacerbate the situation, he got his associate, Crystalla du Plessis, to sign the sales agreement on Groundswell’s behalf using a dubious “letter of authority”, thereby concealing his ownership of the company.
Recently, Justice Henry Mbha, for the SCA, found this arrangement was a sham, stating that “to describe what happened as a shenanigan is, in my view, an understatement”.
The court concluded Nortje was the true purchaser all along, creating a clear and unlawful conflict of interest.
The deception deepened after the sale agreement was signed. Nortje weaponised a clause that granted the “purchaser” the beneficial occupation of performing minor repairs.
Without Brown’s knowledge, he had Groundswell enter into a “renovation and repairs agreement” with another of his companies, Horizon Group.
This agreement authorised extensive, unauthorised construction – including two new bathrooms and kitchens – for R3.5 million, which exceeded the property’s R3-million purchase price.
Crucially, this agreement also granted Horizon a builder’s lien over the property, entitling it to possession until payment was made. Nortje then moved into the property, using it as his home and office without Brown’s consent.
When Brown discovered the fraud and cancelled the sale, Nortje attempted a final manoeuvre: a purported “cession” where Du Plessis ceded all rights in the property to him.
The court found this cession invalid, noting Nortje, as the defined “agent” in the agreement, could not be the “third party” required for such a transfer.
Nortje had previously taken a prior high court decision that declared the sale agreement invalid and the builder’s lien void on appeal to the SCA, which refused the appeal.
Then he took the matter back to that court for reconsideration, which “hopelessly failed” and thereby exposed a grave injustice he was trying to visit on his client.
The court was scathing in its cost order, holding Nortje personally liable for Brown’s legal costs on a punitive, attorney-client scale, citing his misrepresentation and unconscionable conduct throughout the saga.
