H.W. and Another v R.S. (18246/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1125 (10 November 2025)

Case Note

HW & Another v RS 18246/2019 (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, 10 November 2025)

Reportability

This case is reportable as it addresses critical issues surrounding oral loan agreements and the distinction between loans and donations within the context of personal relationships. The ruling provides significant guidance on the principles of evidence applicable in disputes over the nature of financial transactions. It is of interest to other judges and practitioners as it clarifies the evidentiary standard required to establish a loan agreement in the absence of written documentation.

Cases Cited

• McWilliams v First Consolidated Holdings (Pty) Ltd 1982 (2) SA 1 (A)
• R v Dhlumayo and Another 1948 (2) SA 677 (A)
• Santam Bpk v Biddulph 2004 (5) SA 586 (SCA)
• S v Hadebe 1997 (2) SACR 641 (SCA)
• Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd v Martell et Cie 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

None specifically cited in the judgment.

Rules of Court Cited

None specifically cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case involves an appeal against a lower court's ruling that absolved the respondent from a claim to repay R610,000 which the appellants alleged was lent to the respondent. The first appellant contended that this amount constituted loans which the respondent was obligated to repay, whereas the respondent argued these were donations made during a romantic relationship. The court ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the payments were indeed loans and that the defendant's silence in acknowledging her debt was significant in assessing the facts.

Key Issues

The primary legal questions addressed by the court included the characterization of the financial transfers as either loans or donations and the evidentiary requirements necessary to prove the existence of a loan agreement, particularly in a personal relationship setting. The court also evaluated the implications of the respondent's silence in response to repeated demands for repayment.

Held

The court held that the payments made by the appellants to the respondent were loans repayable on demand. The earlier order of absolution from the instance was set aside, with judgment granted in favor of the appellants for the full amount along with interest and costs.

THE FACTS

The appellants, who are married and plaintiffs at the lower court, claimed that they had advanced R610,000 to the respondent in two oral loan agreements during early 2017, with each amount being repayable upon request. The first appellant stated the payments were loans, while the respondent admitted to receiving the funds but contended they were donations given out of generosity during a romantic relationship between herself and the first appellant.

The lower court found that neither party had sufficiently proved their claims, leading to an order of absolution from the instance. However, the appellants produced WhatsApp messages and a banking reference indicating the transaction was characterized as a loan, while the respondent maintained that her earlier acknowledgments were made to avoid conflict and were not reflective of a loan agreement.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining whether the financial transactions were structured as loans or as gifts, as well as assessing the weight of the evidence supporting the appellants' claims. Key questions included the legitimacy of the oral agreement, the nature of the payments, and the implications of the respondent's failure to dispute the appellants' claims materially.

ANALYSIS

The court's reasoning emphasized the importance of objective evidence over subjective witness impressions. In evaluating the credibility of testimonies during the trial, the appellate court noted that the trial judge may have overly focused on the demeanor of the witnesses rather than on the substantial documentary evidence that indicated the transactions were loans.

The court highlighted the extensive communication between the parties, specifically the WhatsApp exchanges where the defendant repeatedly acknowledged the debt and committed to repayment. The language used in these communications, alongside the banking reference noted by the defendant, substantially contradicted her later claims that the amounts were given as gifts. The precedent set in McWilliams v First Consolidated Holdings (Pty) Ltd was invoked to reinforce the legal principle that a party’s silence in the face of a demand for repayment may constitute an implicit acknowledgment of liability.

The court found that the prior relationship context did not diminish the reality of the transactional nature of the payments made. Thus, the existence of loans was affirmed based on the cumulative effect of the exhibited evidence and lack of denials from the respondent during the exchanges.

REMEDY

The court ordered that the decision of absolution from the instance be set aside. It ruled in favor of the appellants, awarding them R610,000, interest on the amount from the date of demand to the date of final payment, as well as the costs of the suit against the respondent.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case underscores critical legal principles including: - The distinction between loans and donations, particularly in personal transactions. - The weight of documentary evidence compared to witness testimony in establishing the existence of loan agreements. - The implications of silence or failure to dispute allegations of indebtedness as indicative of acknowledgment of debt. - The standard of proof required for establishing claims in the context of oral agreements.

In summation, the court reinforced the view that financial transactions, even when occurring within personal relationships, must adhere to standards of contractual obligations as evidenced by the parties’ conduct and communications.