A 91-year-old Durban pensioner, Enid McNeill, has taken her own daughter to court saying she wants back the £100 000 (about R1.3 million) she “lent” her more than three years ago.
McNeill, who lives in Carrington Heights, says she wants the matter to be heard urgently because she is in poor health, and wants it finally resolved before she dies so she can rest in peace.
She says she is immobile, bed-ridden and there is no prospect of recovery.
But daughter Judith Wil- liams says the money was a “donation”. She also disputes that her mother is “frail”.
“For her age, she is remarkably fit and healthy. She is often shopping…” she said.
The dispute – aired in papers filed with the Durban High Court – began in May 2010 when McNeill served summons on Williams demanding her money.
She said that, in terms of an “oral agreement” in January or February 2009, her daughter had promised to repay her on demand and within a reasonable time, but when she asked for the money back, Williams did not pay.
Williams filed a notice of opposition denying ever “concluding a loan agreement”.
She also said the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter because she now lived in London.
But McNeill says this is not so.
“I know she moved temporarily to England to assist my granddaughter with her child. But she kept her place of residence here (in Essenwood Road), and she is employed as an accounts administrator at her husband’s business.
“She is still a South African citizen and permanent resident. She also owns a property here.”
Williams said her mother knew she was living overseas and that she had purchased a property, “partly funded by monies she is now claiming”.
“The initial summons was served on my husband here. The only reason I have returned to South Africa is for this case and I am only employed part-time. If she has the personal knowledge (of my circumstances) she pretends to have, she would know that I have long since relocated to the UK.”
Williams said she “certainly disputes” that her mother was immobile and bed-ridden and had no prospects of recovery “although she does not disclose from what”.
When the matter came before Judge Graham Lopes recently, he said that apart from the “stark dispute of facts” regarding jurisdiction, the remaining issues were simple.
McNeill wanting the issue resolved as soon as possible was not remarkable “particularly given the fact that the resolution of the dispute between them may have some effect on her relationship with her daughter”.
He set timeframes for the filing of further papers and directed the registrar of the court to give McNeill preference in setting the matter down for trial.
