Welcome to Miltons Matsemela - The Conveyancers
06 Aug 2019

COMMENTARY ON THE PROPERTY SECTOR TRANSFORMATION CHARTER CODE

Section 20(1) of the Property Practitioners Bill states that:

“The Property Sector Transformation Charter Code, as amended from time to time, applies to all property practitioners”

But how will the code be enforced on the industry? Well, this will be done in an indirect but very effective way. From the time that the Property Practitioners Bill becomes law, one of the requirements for the issue of a Fidelity Fund Certificate will be that the Property Practitioner is “in possession of a valid BEE certificate.” (Section 50(a)(x)). To get this BEE certificate you will have to comply with the Code.

This Property Sector Code was published in the Government Gazette on 9 June 2017. Its main purpose is to set out a path for transformation in the property sector. In the preamble it states that the Code:

  • Constitutes a framework and establishes the principles upon which Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) will be implemented in the property sector; and
  • Establishes targets and qualitative undertakings in respect of each element of B-BBEE; and
  • Outlines processes for implementing the commitments (to transformation) contained in the code and creates mechanisms to monitor and report on progress.

It is therefore of vital importance for all owners of estate agencies to know what is happening here so that they can start preparing themselves for compliance. It will also be of interest to all estate agents to know of these big changes that will be taking place in the industry.

The Code starts by setting out the challenges facing the property sector, starting with situation created by the Native Land Act of 1913, which denied black South Africans the right to the ownership of more than 93% of the productive land in South Africa. It sets out the sad situation that we are faced with in the property sector where property ownership is predominantly white and where black people are underrepresented as employees and business owners in all parts of the property sector.

The code also seeks to redress gender inequalities in the sector, especially in respect of black women.

Amongst the objectives of the code are:

  • To promote economic transformation, especially as regards ownership and control and management of businesses, and make the sector more representative;
  • To unlock obstacles to property ownership by black people;
  • To promote development and encourage investment, especially in under resourced areas;
  • To support micro and small enterprises;
  • To improve skills development;
  • To facilitate the accessibility of finance;

 

EXEMPTED MICRO ENTERPRISES

The Code will not apply equally to all businesses in the property sector. The Code recognizes that it will be more difficult for smaller businesses to comply and lower levels of compliance will be required by these smaller businesses. Businesses falling below certain thresholds are totally exempted from specific compliance with B-BBEE requirements.
Property enterprises whose businesses are “asset-based”, I assume this to mean enterprises which trade in property, are exempt if the net assets of the business are less then R80 million. Enterprises who are services based, like property management companies, will be exempt if the turnover is less than R10 million.

Estate agencies however, get a special mention and they are only treated as Exempted Micro Enterprises (and exempt from the B-BBEE requirements) if the annual turnover is less than R2.5 million.

QUALIFYING SMALL ENTERPRISES

Assuming your estate agency has an annual turnover of more than R2.5 million, the next category of enterprises that you might fall into is the category of “Qualifying Small Enterprises”. These are enterprises with assets of less than R400 million for asset-based enterprises and an annual turnover of less than R50 million for service-based enterprises.
But once again, estate agencies get a special mention, an estate agency business will fall into this category if it has an annual turnover of less than R35 million.

So, for an estate agency to fall into the category of Qualifying Small Enterprises, it must have an annual turnover of more than R2.5 million, but less than R35 million. I think that a lot of estate agencies will fall into this category.

GENERIC CATEGORY

Estate agencies with an annual turnover of more than R35 million will fall into the Generic (unlimited) category. Other service-based property businesses will only fall into this category if they have an annual turnover of more than R50 million.

START-UP ENTERPRISES

A new business will be treated as an Exempted Micro Enterprise for the first year. If it is going to tender for contracts above a specific value during this period, it will however need to submit a scorecard for a Qualifying Small Enterprise, or a Generic scorecard, depending on the value of the contract.

THE SCORECARD (section 10)

Your B-BBEE compliance is determined on the basis of a scorecard. There is a slight difference in the weighting on the scorecards for Qualifying Small Enterprises and Generic Enterprises (to make it easier for the smaller enterprises) but the emphasis on the various elements remains similar. The factors that are measured in the scorecards are:

CATEGORY QUALIFYING SMALL ENTERPRISE GENERIC
Ownership 27 points 30 points
Management control 9 points 9 points
Employment equity 11 points 13 points
Skills development 17 points 19 points
Enterprise and supplier development 35 points 39 points
Socio-economic development 2 points 2 points
Economic development 4 points 5 points
Total 105 points 117 points

 

The category of economic development is unique to the property sector. Under this heading the extent to which an entity contributes towards development in under resourced areas is measured.

The maximum score possible is 105 points for QSE’s and 117 points in the Generic category. If you exceed targets you can also qualify for bonus points.

Scores for each category are calculated based on set formulas and the outcome of the calculation will determine your level of compliance.

OVERSIGHT

The implementation of the code is to be overseen by the Property Sector Charter Council. Entities within the property sector will be encouraged to contribute towards funding the Charter Council and this will be recognised as part of Enterprise Development or Supplier Development. You can therefore buy some points by contributing to the costs of the Council.

Qualifying enterprises (including all estate agencies with a turnover of more than R2,5 million) will have to submit a B-BBEE report, a certificate and a scorecard, verified by an accredited BEE verification agency, to the Charter Council on an annual basis. They will then receive their BEE certificate.

KEY PRINCIPLES IN MEASURING B-BBEE COMPLIANCE

  • Substance takes precedence over legal form.
  • Misrepresentation will be dealt with in accordance with the B-BBEE Act.
  • The splitting of enterprises to enable them to qualify in lower category may constitute an offence.
  • All representations about compliance must be supported by suitable evidence.

 

APPLICATION OF THE CODES

How this code is to be applied and how the scores are to be calculated is very complicated and requires specialist knowledge of the B-BBEE Act. That is where the BEE verification agencies will come in.

An enterprise will be awarded points on their scorecard for compliance with different categories. The closer you are to your targets, the more points you will earn. You also have the possibility to earn bonus points if you exceed your targets. Once your scorecard is marked, it will determine at which level of B-BBEE compliance the enterprise is at.

Below you will find the targets that have been set in the various categories on the scorecard. Compliance to this level will give you a score in excess of 100%. You will then qualify as a level 1 Contributor. The levels go right down to Level 8, and if you score less than 30 points, you will be treated as a Non-Compliant Contributor.

OWNERSHIP

In this section, the targets for ownership of property sector companies that render services (like estate agencies) are stated as follows:

27% ownership by black people

10% ownership by black women

3% ownership by “broad-based ownership schemes and/or designated groups”

3% ownership by “new entrants”.

To score in this category, property owning companies are given a period of 10 years to achieve 50% black ownership, in annual increments.

MANAGEMENT CONTROL

The targets that are set in the code for Management Control of estate agencies are the following:

50% of voting rights must be held by black people at board level, of which one half must be held by black females;

50% of the executive directors as a percentage of all executive directors must be black and half of these directors must be black females;

60% of the executive management must be black, and half of these must be black females.

The code specifically defines the term “management” in the context of an estate agency. Somebody is part of management if he is earning more than R360 000 per year and is “possessing a level of authority”. This means that for someone to qualify as a manager for the purposes of your scorecard, the person will have to earn no less than R30 000 per month.

In generic enterprises, for someone to qualify as a senior manager, they must earn more than R450 000, for someone to qualify as a middle manager, they must earn between R225 000 and R450 000 per annum and a junior manager must earn between R225 000 and R150 000. These requirements obviously put in place to prevent window dressing. If you are going to call an employee a manager, they will need to have a salary that goes along with the title.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

The employment equity targets for estate agencies are as follows:

50% of all agents must be black and 35% must be black females.

35% of the total management team must be black and 18% must be black females. (Remember, these people need to earn decent salaries – as stated above – to qualify as managers.)

30% of the administrative team must be black.

It seems as if there’s quite a bit of overlap between the categories of Management Control and Employment Equity, and you may be able to earn points in both categories for the same thing.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

Under this heading, targets are set for enterprises to use a certain percentage of their income for skills development, including learning programs, apprenticeships and internships. An agency will need to spend 5% of its expenditure on skills development to qualify for the full quota of points in this section.

ENTERPRISE AND SUPPLIER DEVELOPMENT

Under this heading, targets are set for enterprises to use the services of other entities that are BEE compliant.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Under this heading, you are awarded points if you reach targets for contributions to socio-economic development projects that benefit black groups and promote transformation and development.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Under this heading, enterprises are encouraged to invest in economic development projects, especially those in under resourced areas.

WHAT LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A “VALID BEE CERTIFICATE”?

My understanding of the law at this stage is that it will not matter what your level of compliance is, and that all you will have to do is go through the process to work out your scores and then submit that to the Charter Council. The Charter Council will then issue you with a BEE certificate. This certificate might reflect that you are completely non-compliant. The certificate will however be a valid BEE certificate and on the strength of the certificate you will qualify for your Fidelity Fund Certificate.

This process would therefore just help the Charter Council to assess the current situation within the property sector as regards transformation.

I’m confident however that this situation will not last forever. My prediction is that, in terms of the Regulations to the Property Practitioners Act, the Minister will regulate that a “valid BEE certificate” will have to reflect that you qualify at a certain level of compliance. At that stage things are going to get very interesting in our industry. I also predict that this is going to happen sooner rather than later.

Miltons Matsemela

Deon Welz

05 Aug 2019

Choose your conveyancer wisely!

The importance of the choice of a transferring attorney was emphasized in the recent High Court case of Agu v Krige and Others (20763/2017) [2019] ZAWCHC 46. The case involved the theft of R720 000 of trust money by a deceitful conveyancer.

In the court, Agu, who was the Purchaser of a property, was asking for an order in terms of which Krige, the Seller, would be forced to transfer the property to her. This was despite the fact that the conveyancer, who had received the purchase price, had stolen the money.

The sale agreement stipulated that payment of the purchase price by the Purchaser was to be made in full to the Seller’s conveyancer before transfer. The purchase price was then to be held in an interest-bearing trust account (with interest accruing to the Purchaser) until transfer was registered. The purchase price was then to be paid to the Seller.

The Purchaser had paid the full purchase price to the conveyancing attorneys (who had been nominated by the Seller). The Purchaser contended that they had therefore discharged their obligation to make payment. The Seller obviously denied this, and alleged that the Purchaser’s obligation to pay would only be discharged once he had received payment.

The Court therefore had to determine whether the conveyancer was the Seller’s agent in receiving the funds for the property. If the conveyancer was the Seller’s agent, then the Purchaser could be said to have paid the purchase price and would be entitled to the transfer of the property. If the conveyancer was not the Seller’s agent to receive the purchase price, then the Purchaser could not be said to have paid, and would not be entitled to transfer unless she paid again.

The Court found in favour of the Purchaser and held that the conveyancer had acted as an agent for the Seller when collecting the purchase price. Thus, the Purchaser had “complied with her obligation in terms of the deed of sale by making payment of the purchase price to the [conveyancer].” The Court therefore ordered the Seller to transfer the property to the Purchaser.

Our feeling is that this is another one of those cases that could have gone either way, and it is a judgment that might be overturned on appeal.

But what should we learn from this case? It emphasises the importance of making use of an honest and reputable conveyancer when purchasing or selling property. It is also a reminder to look at your own deed of sale, and, if you had wanted the case to turn out differently, you should make appropriate changes to ensure that this question is not open to interpretation.

If you need assistance in making changes to your deed of sale, do not hesitate to contact one of our attorneys.

Storm Barry and Deon Welz
July 2019

05 Jul 2019

Business Email Dos and Don’ts

“The email of the species is deadlier than the mail” (Stephen Fry)

Do your business emails enhance your brand or tarnish it? It’s a critical question, particularly for businesses with high email volumes (that’s most of us these days) and it’s entirely up to you what the answer is.

On the one hand it’s all too easy to jeopardise an entire business relationship by hitting the “Send” button on a badly considered, written or configured email. On the other, it’s easy to turn every email you send into a powerful projection of all the good things you want everyone to know about your business and about you personally.

Get started with “The dos and don’ts when sending a business email” on BusinessTech, a 13-point checklist of things to watch for, from “Subject Line” to “Conversation Closer”.

03 Jul 2019

Airbnb Owners and Buyers – Should You Be Worried About the New Regulations?

“While travel on our platform accounts for less than 1 in 8 visitors to South Africa, those guests boosted the economy by R8.7 billion and helped create 22,000 jobs last year alone” and “Regulation is a useful and necessary tool of good policy, but policy comes first. Sadly, the current wording of the draft Bill is very vague and unclear. It indicates the creation of specific regulatory approaches without any explanation of what they are trying to encourage or solve.” (Airbnb)

Recent media reports of government plans to regulate Airbnb and other “short-term home rentals” have sent shivers down the spines of many Airbnb owners (and those thinking of buying property for the purpose).

But should you be worried? It’s an important question because short-term letting can be highly profitable for property owners who own or buy the right property in the right place and at the right time.

So let’s have a look at what has actually happened so far. What stage has the proposed new legislation reached and what does it actually provide? And is it possible at this stage to make any sort of informed guess as to what the final outcome might be?

Firstly, there is no doubt that Airbnb can be highly profitable for you if you have – or buy – the right property in the right place at the right time.

Just be sure to comply with all municipal zoning and other by-laws and (if you are in a community housing scheme) any Body Corporate or Home Owners Association requirements. There is also a host of other legal, tax, financial and practical concerns to consider – proper legal advice (and a short-term letting contract tailored to meet your particular needs) will pay handsome dividends.

A new factor to take into account now is government’s proposed new regulation of short-term rental schemes like Airbnb and its accommodation booking platform. The news has sent shivers down the spines of both existing and prospective Airbnb owners.

But is there actually anything to worry about? It’s much too soon to be sure but there may be grounds for optimism. Let’s start with a look at what has actually happened to date.

Here are the facts so far

  • Government’s declared intention is to regulate short-term home rentals because, it says, of perceptions that it may be hurting the tourism sector. Like other digital disruptors – Uber springs to mind – Airbnb has literally thrown a cat among the pigeons, and we are no doubt now seeing the fallout.
  • The proposal is contained in the Tourism Amendment Bill, published on 15 April 2019 with a 60 day window for public comment which has now been extended to 15 July. The Bill includes a provision for “the determination of thresholds for short-term home sharing”.
  • The relevant new definition in the Bill is: “‘short-term home rental’ means the renting or leasing on a temporary basis, for reward, of a dwelling or a part thereof, to a visitor.”
  • Reaction from stakeholders has been varied to say the least, with media reports suggesting a heady mix of both strong support for, and bitter opposition to, the new proposals. Perhaps most pertinently Airbnb has met with the Minister of Tourism and reportedly supports “fair and proportional rules that are evidence-based, benefit local people, and distinguish between professional and non-professional activity taking into account local conditions.”

So where to from here?

Time alone will tell what the final Amendment Act will actually look like, but the majority opinion does seem to be that in the end result a fair and workable balance will be struck between the need to regulate the industry on the one hand, and the need to encourage entrepreneurship and grow tourism on the other.

Expect an outcry and court challenges if that doesn’t happen.

03 Jul 2019

Your Last Will: The Dire Consequences of Neglecting Formalities

“It is not intended for the Court to make a will for the deceased based on what his intentions may have been” (Quoted in the judgment below)

Your “Last Will and Testament” could be the most important document you will ever sign because it’s the only safe way to ensure that your loved ones are properly provided for after you are gone.

It’s essential therefore to put in place a will that complies with South African law. We’ll discuss the formalities required for your will to be accepted as valid, and we’ll illustrate the importance of complying with them by reference to a case in which a divorced accountant’s emailed “Final will” was not validated by the High Court.

So although the accountant clearly intended to leave his estate to his new fiancée, it instead goes to his ex-wife under his original written will.

As a general rule our law holds us to our agreements and statements, whether we express them verbally, electronically or in written form.

But there are exceptions – some things just have to be in writing and signed before the law will recognise them. One of those exceptions is quite possibly the most important document you will ever sign – your “Last Will and Testament”. Ultimately it’s your final gift to your loved ones – a gift that ensures they are properly provided for when (not “if”) you die.

Don’t neglect this or procrastinate – without a will you have forfeited your right to choose who inherits your assets and who is appointed as executor. And it’s equally vital to validly update or replace your will after a significant “life event” (marriage, birth, death, divorce etc) – we’ll consider below the sad case of an accountant who intended to change his will but just never got around to it.

But first, what must you do for your will to be valid?

The formalities

To be valid, a South African will must comply with a list of formalities. There are several of them and they require strict compliance, so getting specific legal help is a no-brainer here. But in general terms your will should be in writing and signed by you in the presence of two “competent” witnesses.

The question arises whether in this age of electronic contracts and signatures an “electronic will” (perhaps in an email, a video, a Social Media post or the like) might suffice. In short, the answer is almost certainly no, it won’t. The Master of the High Court (who accepts your will as valid or not) needs to see a piece of paper and physical signatures. And the same applies to any subsequent amendments to your will.

An escape route

There is however a possible escape route – our Wills Act provides that a Court may order the Master to accept an otherwise invalid will when satisfied that it was intended by the deceased to be his/her last will. That’s a great tool which has often enabled our courts to avoid situations of “injustice through formality”, but there is still absolutely no safe substitute for a properly-executed will.

As this recent High Court judgment illustrates all too clearly…

The accountant who emailed his “Final will” to his fiancée

  • In 2006, a “very meticulous” accountant drew up a written will, properly drawn and formalised. In it he left everything to his then wife, from whom he was divorced in 2011.
  • In 2014 he became engaged to another woman with whom he had been in a “romantic relationship”.
  • On 4 January 2016 he emailed his new fiancée, under the subject line “Final will”, recording in part that “This serves as my final will and testament … If I die, all my assets and investments go to [my fiancée] … “My life policies must all go to [my fiancée]”.
  • Subsequent emails made it clear that both the accountant and his fiancée were aware that there could potentially be disputes regarding the validity of the emailed “will”, and accordingly an “Action” list that the fiancée then sent to the accountant included an action item “Will”. In the end however he never got around to actually making and signing a written will.
  • When the accountant died on 14 September 2016, the Master appointed as executor the bank nominated in his 2006 will.
  • The fiancée approached the High Court for an order recognising the 2016 email as the true will, alternatively revoking the part of his 2006 will leaving the estate to his ex-wife. Unsurprisingly, the ex-wife opposed this application.
  • Firstly, the Court accepted on the facts that the accountant had indeed drafted the email, but it then turned to the second leg of its enquiry – “Whether the deceased intended the disputed Will to be his Last Will and Testament”.
  • Commenting that “it is not intended for the Court to make a will for the deceased based on what his intentions may have been”, the Court found that it was “improbable that he would have intended the disputed Will to be his Last Will and Testament”, and that – this is the critical part – his email was “nothing more than an email in which he was assuring the applicant that he will make her a beneficiary of his estate”.
  • The end result – the accountant clearly intended to leave his estate to his fiancée. But he never got around to drawing up a formal written will to that effect, so the 2006 will stands, the ex-wife takes all and the fiancée leaves with nothing.

The bottom line – “intention” is not enough!

Whatever you intend should become of your worldly goods, and no matter how you may have recorded your wishes, the only safe way to ensure that they are honoured is to execute a valid written will.

This is a vital document and there are dire consequences to not getting it 100% right so ask your lawyer for help!

03 Jul 2019

Property Transfers and Trust Account Theft: A R720,000 Warning

“The issue of whether a conveyancing attorney receives the money as the agent of the seller, or of the purchaser, or of both, or as trustee for both to await the event, is a somewhat vexed question … and each case must be considered in the light of its own facts and the particular contractual terms under which the conveyancer received payment” (Extract from judgment below)

Buying a property, whether to live in, work in or just as an investment, invariably involves a substantial amount of money changing hands.

Whether you are the seller or the buyer, the last thing you want is for the money to be stolen by a dishonest transferring attorney. If it happens, who carries the loss? Must transfer still be passed to the buyer? Who must lodge a claim with the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund and hope that it pays out without delay?

A recent High Court case involving the theft of over R720,000 from a trust account is a timely warning of the risks to both parties and of the uncertainties involved in deciding who suffers what loss. We’ll end off with some practical tips for both sellers and buyers.

A lot of money changes hands in property sales, and for many of us buying or selling a house is the largest single financial transaction of our lives.

A recent High Court judgment involving a theft of R720,000 by a dishonest conveyancer (transferring attorney) provides a timely warning to both buyers and sellers to proceed with extreme caution. And as always, the core message to both is this: Sign nothing without your lawyer’s advice!

The conveyancer who stole from her trust account

  • A seller sold a sectional title unit to a buyer for R720,000. The sale agreement provided for payment in full by the buyer to the conveyancer, the funds to be held in trust in an interest-bearing account until transfer, interest to accrue for the buyer’s benefit.
  • The conveyancer had, as is usual unless otherwise negotiated, been nominated by the seller. In this case the buyer asked to use her own attorneys but the seller “vehemently” insisted on nominating his attorney.
  • On request from the conveyancer, the buyer paid the R720,000 (plus R16,700 towards the transfer costs payable by her) into the conveyancer’s trust account.
  • When later it became clear that the conveyancer had stolen these funds, the buyer demanded transfer from the seller. The seller refused – the money was gone and he wasn’t prepared to lose both his property and the purchase price.
  • At the same time however he (the seller) lodged a claim with the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund, which was at that time still called the Attorneys Fidelity Fund and is referred to below as “the Fund”. In the event of such a theft, the Fund will in its own words “assist you with the reimbursement of your monies if your claim is valid.”
  • However, the Fund refused to pay the seller’s claim because of its view that the loss was sustained by the buyer, not by the seller.
  • The buyer disagreed. It wasn’t, she said, her loss, it was the seller’s. She wasn’t going to now pay the purchase price over again and then have to claim from the Fund. So she asked the High Court to order the seller to pass transfer to her.
  • What the Court had to decide is whether or not the conveyancer was the seller’s agent to receive payment of the purchase price from the buyer. If so, the buyer had paid and was entitled to transfer. If not, the buyer had not paid and had no right to transfer.
  • The danger for both seller and buyer here is that as the Court put it “the issue of whether a conveyancing attorney receives the money as the agent of the seller, or of the purchaser, or of both, or as trustee for both to await the event, is a somewhat vexed question … and each case must be considered in the light of its own facts and the particular contractual terms under which the conveyancer received payment.”

So whose agent was the conveyancer?

In the end the Court ordered the seller to pass transfer to the buyer, finding on the facts and on the Court’s interpretation of this particular payment clause that –

  • The conveyancer in this matter had acted as agent for both the buyer and the seller – as agent for the buyer in investing the funds pending transfer, but as agent for the seller in receiving payment of the purchase price.
  • Accordingly the buyer “complied with her obligation in terms of the deed of sale by making payment of the purchase price to the [conveyancer] who was nominated by the [seller] to receive payment of the purchase price on the latter’s behalf”.
  • “In addition, the Deed of Sale provided for the mode of actual payment of the purchase price and once this was done, the [buyer] had discharged her obligations. She did what was required contractually in respect of the purchase price and had no control of the process thereafter.”

The seller is therefore down R720,000 plus costs, and will be hoping that the Fund will now pay out his claim without further ado.

Sellers

Choose a competent and trustworthy conveyancer. Don’t ever be railroaded by anyone into appointing someone else! And if your attorney isn’t also an admitted conveyancer, ask him/her for a referral to a trusted colleague who is.

Buyers

As we saw above, the wording of the sale agreement is central to the level of risk you run – it should be clear that in paying the purchase price to the conveyancer you are paying the seller in complete discharge of your obligations under the sale agreement.

Bottom line – as always, ask your attorney for advice and assistance before you sign anything!

30 May 2019

You Signed a Property Sale Agreement, Can You Still Accept a Better Offer?

Selling property, particularly your own home, is one of the more stressful events in life. Will you get the right buyer? The best price? What if it all goes wrong?

Then an offer comes in that is acceptable, but not perfect. If for example there is a bond clause and the buyer’s bond application fails a month down the line you’ve lost all that valuable marketing time. You’ll never know whether you just missed the “perfect offer” while your buyer filled out bank forms and got FICA’d for the tenth time.

Relax; there is an answer – the “72-hour clause” often found in standard sale agreements. We’ll cover what the clause means, how it works, when you need it, and what should always be covered in it, with a note also for property buyers.

You put your property on the market and an acceptable but not-perfect offer comes in. On the “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” principle you want to accept the offer even though it’s not ideal.

Perhaps it’s not perfect because it’s subject to a suspensive condition – common ones give the buyer time to sell his/her current house or to obtain a bond. In both scenarios your sale will fall through if the buyer is unsuccessful within the stated time, and if that happens you are back to square one after a long and fruitless delay. Bear in mind that that delay could be a protracted one depending on what your sale agreement actually provides – normally no less than 30 days to get a bond, sometimes several months to sell an existing house. That’s a lot of very valuable marketing time lost – and you’ll never know for sure whether you just missed out on that “perfect offer”.

The “72-hour clause” and what it does

This is where the “72-hour”, “continued marketing” or “escape” clause comes in handy.

In a nutshell, it allows you to continue marketing your property until suspensive conditions are met. If your marketing pays off and an unconditional offer does come in, you can give your existing buyer 72 hours’ notice to match it. So the buyer would have an opportunity to make the sale unconditional – either by waiving (abandoning) the condition or by fulfilling it.

If the buyer fails to do whatever the clause requires within the 72 hours, you are clear to accept the new offer. If on the other hand the buyer does perform in time, the existing sale immediately becomes fully binding and the transfer process can get underway.

A note for buyers

The clause is usually there for the seller’s benefit so perhaps avoid it when you can. But if it’s a choice between your offer being accepted or not, bear in mind that having a signed sale agreement at least gives you a solid base for a full bond application and/or a concerted effort to finalise your own house sale.

Just be ready to react quickly if the seller does indeed give you the 72 hour notice – you don’t want to be rushing around in a last-minute panic.

Buyers and sellers – check the wording!

Although 72-hour clauses are common in standard sale agreements, the exact wording can vary substantially, and may need tailoring to meet your specific needs. You might for example want to be given proof of availability of funds together with a bond clause waiver, or proof that the sale of the buyer’s house is a viable one – every situation will be different.

Apart from everything else, make sure that –

  • The 72 hour period specifically excludes Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays (religious holidays too if important to you),
  • You can extend the 72 hours by mutual agreement if you want to,
  • There are clear requirements for the method and timing of giving notice and of waiving conditions, and
  • You aren’t binding yourself to anything else that could turn around and bite you down the line.

Delete the clause if it doesn’t apply.

As always, have your lawyer check it all for you before you sign anything!

30 Apr 2019

Security Estates: Can You Fine Speedsters?

“When the [property owners] chose to purchase property within the estate and become members of the Association, they agreed to be bound by its rules” (extract from judgment below)

Buying property in security estates and other community schemes comes with a range of benefits, but it’s important to be aware of all the rules and regulations you are agreeing to – our courts will almost always hold you to them!

For example, Home Owners Associations and Bodies Corporate will welcome a recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision upholding the rights of a golf estate to impose a 40km/h speed limit (and penalties for breaching it) on all homeowners, tenants and guests using estate roads.

We discuss the facts of the case (which involved speeding fines totalling R3,000 imposed on a homeowner’s daughter), its outcome, and the basis of the Court’s decision.

There are many advantages to buying in a security estate or other community scheme, including quality of life and increased potential for growth in your property’s value.

As a buyer just be aware that you will almost certainly be binding yourself to a set of rules and regulations imposed by the Homeowners Association (HOA) or Sectional Title Body Corporate. Check that you are happy with them before you sign anything! Our courts have regularly confirmed the general principle that you are bound by what you agree to, and a recent high-profile Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decision provides an interesting example.

HOAs and Bodies Corporate on the other hand will be particularly pleased with the outcome, the High Court having originally held that the speed limit rules imposed by the estate in question were an unlawful attempt to usurp State powers over public roads and therefore invalid.

Speeding fines in a golf estate

  • A large golf estate (comprising some 890 freehold and sectional title properties with extensive common areas and facilities) is serviced by a network of roads and pathways. It has imposed a speed limit of 40km/h on its roads, with penalties for speeding.
  • A property owner was fined R3,000 for his daughter’s repeated speeding contraventions, but he refused to pay, and the dispute has since then been grinding its way through the courts.
  • The High Court originally held the speed limit rule to be invalid on the grounds that the estate’s roads were “public roads”.
  • But the SCA overturned this ruling, holding that the estate is a “private township” and its roads are (and were from inception) “private roads”. The “general public” has no right to access the estate’s roads, admission being restricted by electrified perimeter fencing and strict control at gated access points to owners, tenants, employees, guests, invitees and other “duly authorised persons”.
  • Even if the roads had been “public”, said the Court, owners had voluntarily agreed to bind themselves contractually to use the estate’s roads subject to the conduct rules. And because invitees are only allowed into the estate with the owner’s prior consent, the rule making the owner responsible for any breach by them of the rules is valid.
  • Moreover, the estate’s imposition of a speed limit is not unreasonable, especially given the presence of children, pedestrians and animals (wild and domestic) in the estate.

The end result – the estate’s speed limit is valid, it is entitled to impose penalties for breaches, and the owner must pay his daughter’s speeding fines together with some (no doubt substantial) legal costs.

30 Apr 2019

Accidentally Paid the Wrong Person? Lessons From a R862k Banking App Error

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch” (Economist Milton Friedman)

You accidentally pay a large amount of money to the wrong person. Or perhaps you overpay the right person. That sort of mistake happens all too often in these days of banking apps and online payments, and the question is – what can you do if the recipient point blank refuses to repay you?

A lot of money could be riding on the answer, and fortunately our law provides a remedy in the form of an “unjustified enrichment” claim.

We look at a recent High Court case involving R861,940 that was paid out to a couple when a bank’s “remote banking app” malfunctioned. Read on for a discussion of the Court’s decision, and of what you must be able to prove to succeed in such a claim.

In these days of online banking and electronic payment, it’s not uncommon to find out to your horror that you have made a payment to someone in error, either to the wrong recipient or in an incorrect amount. If that happens to you and the recipient refuses to pay you back, what can you do about it?

The other side of the coin of course is whether the recipient of an unexplained and unexpected bank account credit can safely go ahead and spend the windfall (the answer in a nutshell is very strong “no” – if there are indeed any free lunches in the world, this is unlikely to be one of them!).

A recent High Court judgment sets out the requirements for a claim based on “unjustified enrichment”.

A banking app duplicates payments of R861,940

  • A couple were the happy beneficiaries of a malfunction in their bank’s “remote banking” app
  • In effect they received duplicate transfers into their two accounts totalling R861,940
  • The bank duly sued them for return of the money on the basis that they had been “unjustifiably enriched” at its expense
  • Initially the couple denied that any duplication had taken place, but at trial they dropped their denial, claiming instead to have repaid the bank in cash
  • The husband’s story was that he had paid a bank employee, since deceased, who had put the cash into a safe “in case a claim was made”. He was unable to say how much money had been handed over, he could not give dates, and no receipts were requested or given. Nevertheless his evidence was accepted by the trial court and the bank’s claim failed.
  • However on appeal to a “full bench” (a “full court” of three High Court judges, sometimes more), the husband’s version was rejected as “inherently improbable”, and the couple was ordered to repay the bank together with interest and legal costs.

What must you prove?

The requirements for an unjustified enrichment claim are –

  1. The recipient has in fact been enriched by receiving the money (it needn’t be money, it could for example be an asset of some sort)
  2. You have been “impoverished” by the transfer
  3. The recipient’s enrichment was at your expense
  4. The enrichment was legally unjustified.

Once the couple admitted receiving the money without a legal basis, held the Court, the onus shifted to them to prove that there was no enrichment. So their failure to prove repayment was the end of their case.

Don’t despair if the facts of your case don’t tie in fully with the above requirements – our law may have other remedies for you. Ask your lawyer for help.

30 Apr 2019

Expats and Employers: Plan Now For the New Expat Tax Changes

“An income tax form is like a laundry list – either way you lose your shirt” (Comedian Fred Allen)

Expats have until now enjoyed a tax exemption in respect of foreign remuneration earned, provided they meet requirements as to time periods worked overseas. The exemption will however be partially removed with new legislation recently passed.

We look at current requirements for exemption, what the new restrictions on the exemption will be, whether they will affect you, when they will take effect, and what you should think of doing about it.

Note: If you yourself don’t employ a working expatriate, or if you aren’t yourself an expat but you know someone who is – a relative, friend or colleague perhaps – please think of passing this article on.

This article is important to you if you are either a South African working abroad or an employer of one. If you don’t fall into either of those categories, but know someone who does, please think of passing this on.

As an employee earning foreign remuneration (salary, leave pay, bonuses, allowances, commission etc), you currently enjoy an uncapped tax exemption (on that remuneration only, not on other foreign income) provided that you work overseas –

  • For more than a total of 183 days during any 12 month period, and
  • More than 60 of those days are consecutive.

That however is set to change from 1 March 2020, when only the first R1m p.a. of your earnings will be exempt – you will pay tax on anything over that. With the Rand’s weakness showing little sign of abating, a lot of expats and their employers are going to be affected.

Are you a “tax resident”?

Only “tax residents” are affected, so the first thing you should establish is whether you are still a tax resident or not. That’s not always easy, so take professional advice in any doubt.

To illustrate some of the complexities involved, both physical emigration/relocation and “financial emigration” are different concepts to “tax emigration”. Moreover the Income Tax Act’s tests for tax residency are hardly a model of clarity – you are a “resident for tax purposes” if you are either an “ordinary resident” or a resident in terms of the “physical presence test” –

  1. You are, says SARS, an “ordinary resident” if South Africa is the country to which you “will naturally and as a matter of course return after [your] wanderings’, your “usual or principal residence”, or your “real home”.
  2. Even if you aren’t an “ordinary resident”, you will still be a resident under the “physical presence test” if you are physically present in South Africa for more than –
    1. “91 days in total during the year of assessment under consideration; and
    2. 91 days in total during each of the five years of assessment preceding the year of assessment under consideration; and
    3. 915 days in total during those five preceding years of assessment.”

Under the physical presence test however if you are outside the country for a continuous period of at least 330 days you are not regarded as a tax resident.

Should you “tax emigrate”?

If you are indeed a tax resident, don’t think of changing that status without taking full advice. “Tax emigration” and “financial emigration” are complicated processes and full of pitfalls.

For example you could be entitled to foreign tax rebates or other relief on your taxable (i.e. +R1m) foreign earnings, or there may be other benefits to remaining a tax resident. So it is important to have an expert look at your specific situation and determine what is best for you overall.

The big thing is to be aware that change is coming. Some long-range planning is the only way to be certain that there are no unpleasant surprises waiting to spring out on you down the line.

© 2023 Miltons Matsemela. All rights reserved.

Site by Yeabla Digital.

Top