Archives:

Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and Bodies Corporate take note! A recent High Court decision confirms that you cannot enforce your rules and regulations inconsistently.

At stake in this case was an HOA’s instruction to a homeowner to remove his “mirror finish” garage door, which contravened one of the estate’s architectural rules.

But, as some damning photographs of other mirrored doors proved, the HOA had seemingly not enforced that rule consistently…

“Good fences make good neighbours.” (Robert Frost)

When you buy into a community scheme (such as a security estate, complex or apartment block) you automatically become a member of its management body: either a Homeowners Association (“HOA”) if your property is full-title or freehold, or a Body Corporate if your property is part of a sectional title development.

You are then automatically bound by the rules and regulations formulated by your management body, so make sure you understand them fully. They are there to promote everyone’s safety, quality of living and property values, and you have no choice but to abide by them. Of course, as a member, you also have a say in the formulation and amendment of the rules. But once they’re in place you must comply with them.

However, as the outcome of a recent High Court dispute confirms, you are entitled to insist that they be applied consistently and reasonably.

“Remove that garage door, it’s not approved!”

The case saw a homeowner in Randburg take the estate’s HOA to court over their objections to his shiny garage door:

• The HOA’s Main Objectives being to “…to carry on, to promote, advance, and to protect communal interests, safety and welfare of the Members of the Association, including, but not limited to, by maintaining the open spaces, controlling the aesthetic appearance of land, including landscaping, buildings and improvements”, its rules and regulations (specifically one of its Architectural Rules) required homeowners to get approval before installing garage doors with any finish other than timber.
• Imagine the shock, then, when this homeowner went ahead and installed a garage door with a “mirror exterior finish” without asking for permission. The HOA rejected his subsequent application for approval and required him to remove the door.
• The homeowner refused, and the dispute was referred to a CSOS (Community Services Ombud Service) arbitrator, who upheld the HOA’s removal order. But the homeowner, clearly enamoured by his flashy door, wouldn’t take no for an answer.
• On appeal, the High Court reversed the CSOS decision because, as evidenced by photographs, the HOA had previously allowed other garage doors with mirrors or glass in their construction. The HOA had raised nothing to contradict that apparent inconsistency, which, according to the Court, “should have led [the arbitrator] to the conclusion that the Homeowners Association acted inconsistently, and thus unreasonably, by ordering removal of the garage door.”

The upshot?

The homeowner gets to keep his mirrored garage door, and HOAs and Bodies Corporate learn a sharp lesson – apply your rules and regulations fairly, reasonably and consistently.

Remember that we are here to assist if you are unsure of anything!

We’ve all grumbled at having to go and find a commissioner of oaths in a police station or bank just to attest an affidavit, and in these days of online meetings and electronic signature and storage of documents, it seems positively archaic that we can’t do everything remotely.

But, as the relevant Regulations are currently worded, face-to-face physical commissioning seems to remain the only guaranteed way of ensuring that your affidavit will be accepted in court. We’ll discuss why that is with reference to three recent High Court decisions with different facts and differing outcomes.

“These technological developments would have seemed far-fetched and science fiction a brief few years ago.” (Extract from judgment below)

It’s an important question – the invalidity of an affidavit could sink even the strongest case, so it’s vital to get this right. Of course, it’s always tempting to cut corners where you can on the commissioning side, and perhaps you urgently need to sign an affidavit but are far from a commissioner of oaths or perhaps for some reason you just can’t visit a commissioner physically.

That of course became a commonplace scenario during the Covid-19 restrictions on personal contact and the pandemic accelerated the need for our laws to evolve in step with all the new “science fiction made real” technologies enabling meetings to be held virtually, documents to be signed electronically, and secure online handling and storage of information generally.

Whilst legislation and our courts have made important strides in this regard, some areas of uncertainty remain. One of them is the question of whether or not affidavits can be commissioned remotely.

The problem – what does “in the presence of” mean?

For an affidavit to be valid, the relevant Regulations require that it be signed “in the presence of” a commissioner of oaths. And as much as we might think that we are for all practical purposes “in the presence of” everyone else in a virtual meeting or family chat session, it’s not clear yet to what extent virtual presence will be considered sufficient compliance with the Regulations.

Let’s look at three recent High Court decisions with differing outcomes –

1. Case 1: An affidavit validly commissioned by Zoom from Italy: A commissioner of oaths in South Africa commissioned affidavits in a Zoom video call with deponents in Italy. The Court allowed the affidavits to stand, agreeing with previous judicial comments that “…Courts must adapt to the requirements of the modernities within which we operate and upon which we adjudicate…” and concluding that there had been “substantial compliance” with the requirements of the Regulations. However, the Court also cautioned against the idea that courts can “willy nilly accept non-compliance with acts and regulations.”
2. Case 2: An application for a general declaration refused: A global publishing company asked the High Court for an order declaring that “in the presence of” is to be broadly interpreted to include the administration of an oath or affirmation “by means of live electronic communication, consisting of simultaneous audio and visual components”. The Court dismissed the application, distinguishing this case from the one above and commenting that, although the argument that “the object of the Act and the Regulations can be achieved by virtual means is tempting”, it could not ignore “the clear meaning of the words in the Regulations” and “It is not for a Court to impose its view of what would be sensible or businesslike where the wording of the document is clear”.
3. Case 3: Courts have a discretion only if normal commissioning is impossible: A bank’s property valuation affidavits had been signed electronically in the absence of the commissioner of oaths. The Court agreed that a court has a discretion to accept such affidavits “if it finds that that there has been substantial compliance with the regulations” – but only where physical commissioning is not possible. Thus, in a previous matter, a court had exercised its discretion to allow an affidavit’s remote commissioning as a result of “the impossibility of the oath being administered normally because of the Covid restrictions against personal contact”. That, said the Court, “does not mean that a party may deliberately set out to achieve substantial compliance with such regulation rather than comply with its requirements.” In other words, you can’t elect to commission remotely just because it suits you. The valuator’s affidavits were rejected.

Err on the side of caution

There are some important grey areas there, and clearly remote commissioning will not be allowed as a matter of course. You’ll have to justify it.

So, regardless of how inconvenient it may be, unless and until new legislation (or perhaps a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court of Appeal) brings the Regulation’s wording up to speed with technology, the only way to be sure that a court will accept your affidavit as valid is to err on the side of caution and visit a commissioner of oaths physically whenever possible.

Following the Constitutional Court’s partial (and rather vague) legalisation of private, personal use/possession/cultivation of cannabis in 2018, the new “Cannabis for Private Purposes Act” has finally been signed into law.

But, contrary to the impression created by many excited media reports, the Act is not yet in force, nor does it set “maximum amounts” of plants or dried cannabis that can be possessed or cultivated. Let’s have a look at what the Act actually does say, and at what it will, when it commences, allow and not allow…

“It’s high time they legalised cannabis” (Anon)

Much excitement has greeted the signing into law of the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act, which will formally regulate the cultivation, possession, and use of cannabis by adults in a private setting and, says the Presidency, lays the groundwork for regulatory reforms “to allow for the industrialisation of the cannabis sector.”

But although the new Act has been widely reported in the media as though it is already in force, this is not correct – it will only come into effect when its commencement date is gazetted. It is not clear at date of writing when we can expect this to happen, but it could be a lengthy process. Until then the rather vague parameters for private and personal use, possession and cultivation set by the Constitutional Court in 2018 will presumably remain in place.

In the interim, here are some highlights of the Act –

What is “cannabis” in the new Act?

“Cannabis” is defined for the purposes of the Act as meaning “the flowering or fruiting tops of a cannabis plant and includes products made therefrom” (i.e. “buds”, extracts, oils and the like) but the definition excludes “any seed, seedling, the stalk, leaves and branches.”

What you will be able to do, and what you won’t

In a nutshell, it will be legal within prescribed limits to grow, possess, use and share cannabis in private, but not to sell it. More specifically, and with the general requirement of “private purpose” –

• In private: Any adult (18 or over) will be able to cultivate, use, possess and share cannabis “in a private place for a private purpose”. But not in the presence of a child or non-consenting adult, and not “if it is likely to cause a disturbance or nuisance to any person” in a nearby public place. Note that when it comes to sharing (supplying or obtaining), there cannot be any exchange of “consideration” defined as “any form of compensation, gift, reward, favour or benefit” (i.e. sale for recreational as opposed to medical use will remain prohibited, even for private purposes). The prescribed “maximum amounts” (see below) will apply in private as well as in public places.
• In public: An adult will be able to possess (subject to prescribed maximum amounts), but not to use, cannabis in a public place.
• Protections for children: No child (person under 18) can be given cannabis or any cannabis product, nor be allowed to possess or use it without a medical prescription, nor can they be used to deal in it. Importantly, any adult “who is in possession of cannabis must take reasonable measures to ensure that such cannabis is inaccessible to a child whether that child is under the authority, supervision or care of that adult person or not.”

Maximum amounts will be prescribed, and transport will be regulated

Regulations will prescribe –

• The maximum amounts allowed for cultivation, possession and transport of cannabis.
• “Conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, obligations, requirements or standards regarding the transportation of cannabis, by the person transporting cannabis as well as in respect of the passenger in such transport.”

Current speculation (i.e. you can’t hold us to this!) is that the prescribed amounts will be based on those proposed in a version of the Bill which was not incorporated in the final Act. That Bill proposed that adults would be able to –

• Possess unlimited seeds and seedlings.
• Privately cultivate four flowering cannabis plants per person (or eight per household occupied by two or more adults).
• Privately possess 600 grams of dried cannabis per person (or 1,200 grams per household occupied by two or more adults).
• Publicly possess 100 grams of dried cannabis or one flowering cannabis plant.
• Provide/obtain for personal use 30 seeds/seedlings, 1 flowering cannabis plant, 100 grams of dried cannabis.

Note however that the 2020 Bill’s structure is different to that of the final Act, so wait for the final Regulations before relying on any of these speculated limits!

Criminal records to be expunged

Convictions for possession and use of cannabis (dagga) will be automatically expunged, as will convictions for dealing based on legal presumptions rather than actually dealing. Where records have not been automatically expunged, they will be expunged on application.

You buy a brand-new car. “Great”, you think, “there’ll be no defects in a new car”. But you’re wrong – you notice an odd rattle, a mechanical failure, a patch of rust. The dealership refuses to replace the car or repair it. What can you do?

Two recent High Court decisions confirm that the CPA (Consumer Protection Act) will come to your rescue, but only if you follow the correct procedures and only if you can prove what you need to. Let’s see why the buyer in the first case lost but the second buyer won…

“The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) establishes a broad and comprehensive scope for consumer protection. Its purview includes developing and maintaining a consumer market in such a way as to ensure fairness, accessibility, effectiveness, sustainability and responsibility for the benefit of consumers” (Extract from judgment below)

You drive your brand-new car home, eager to take the family out for a first spin. Happiness! Until suddenly the car won’t start, or you notice a funny rattling noise, or you notice rust, or … it could be anything, because although “brand new” should in theory mean “free of defects”, that’s not always so in the real world.

You return to the dealership and demand a refund, or a replacement, or at least a courtesy car and a repair. “Nope, sorry” says the dealership, “there’s nothing wrong with it/the warranty doesn’t cover it/it’s not our problem/blah blah blah” – what can you do?

Step One: Exhaust the CPA’s dispute resolution processes

• A motorist’s brand-new VW Polo Vivo wouldn’t start after it was delivered to her. It was towed to the dealership which reported that it was in working order and not defective.
• A few days later it again wouldn’t start, instead making a “clack clack noise”. The problem was diagnosed as a loose fuse pin and fixed, but the buyer refused to take the car back and gave notice of cancellation of the sale.
• She then lodged a complaint with the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa, which said it couldn’t support her expectation that the supplier must cancel the deal. Off to the High Court went the buyer.
• The Court refused her application for a new car or a refund on the basis that she hadn’t first exhausted all “internal remedies” before approaching a court. Specifically, she should have followed the comprehensive dispute resolution mechanisms set out in the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) – sure, she had approached the applicable industry Ombud, but she hadn’t lodged a complaint with the National Consumer Commission, nor had she approached a Consumer Court, the National Consumer Tribunal or an authorised alternative dispute agent.
• The lesson: Exhaust all other remedies as set out in the CPA before going to court!

Step Two: Heigh Ho Heigh Ho It’s Off to Court We Go

Finding extensive rust in his brand-new Ford Everest, the buyer demanded that the dealership repair it. The dealership refused, claiming that the buyer had spilt pool acid in the car. After unsuccessfully approaching the Motor Industry Ombud (unsuccessful because the dealership declined to cooperate with the Ombud’s investigation), the buyer ended up before the National Consumer Tribunal, which ordered the dealership to remove the rust.

In this case it was the dealership and not the buyer that went to court, with the dealership appealing the Tribunal’s order in the High Court.

The Court rejected the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s rust removal order on the basis that –

• The CPA gives every consumer the right to receive goods that “are of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects”.
• The vehicle was defective at date of sale, and it was irrelevant that the vehicle was still functional and fulfilling its intended purpose of transporting the buyer “from Point A to Point B”– which it had successfully done for 3 years and 170,000 km before this case reached court. As the Court put it, “it is not meant to have a rusting or corrosion on any of its parts as a new vehicle … one can say that the vehicle is less acceptable and unsafe than people generally would reasonably be entitled to expect from the goods of that type, a brand-new car. This indicates a defect in the vehicle.”
• It is for you as buyer in such a case to prove that the defect existed at the time of the sale and that you were unaware of it. In this case, the rust was a latent defect (being hidden under a carpet) and as the buyer was no car expert, it was irrelevant that he had signed a pre-delivery inspection form confirming that there was no problem with the car.
• The Court accordingly found that the buyer had succeeded in proving what he needed to, and the dealership must “remove the rust and repair the Respondent’s car back to the standard it should have been if there was no rust”.

Insist that your brand-new car is free of defects and remember we can help you with specific advice and assistance if it isn’t.

It’s an exciting time, buying a property. But don’t let your guard down – cybercriminals love the lucrative pickings on offer from property transactions, and they never sleep!

We’ll discuss the recent Supreme Court of Appeal case of a widow who, in trying to pay over the purchase price of a house, lost her R5.5m when her email system was hacked and she fell victim to a textbook email scam. Why did the SCA rule against her? How should she have protected herself? We’ll address those questions and share 5 steps you should take immediately to avoid falling into the same trap.

“[The buyer] must in the circumstances take responsibility for her failure to protect herself against a known risk” (extract from judgment below)

Cybercriminals absolutely love targeting property transactions because they provide the perfect mix of large money deposits, heavy reliance on email communication from trusted parties like attorneys, banks and estate agencies, and deadlines creating a sense of urgency and lack of attention to detail.

Let’s consider just one recent example of a high-value BEC (Business Email Compromise) attack on the purchase of a house.

A textbook case costs a pensioner R5.5m

• A woman describing herself as “an elderly divorced pensioner without the knowledge, experience or resources to protect herself against sophisticated cybercrime of which she had no knowledge or experience” purchased a house for R6m.
• She paid a R500k deposit to the estate agents, and then after an exchange of emails with her appointed conveyancers, she paid the balance of R5.5m into what she believed to be the conveyancing firm’s account.
• In fact, her email system had been hacked and the criminals were intercepting and altering both her incoming and outgoing emails. In a typically sophisticated operation, they ensured that the mails and attachments looked genuine, deceived the buyer into paying the R5.5m into their fraudulent account, and then, via a further chain of back-and-forth emails, delayed detection of the fraud for long enough to give them time to withdraw the funds and disappear.
• The buyer sued the conveyancers for her R5.5m loss, arguing that they had a legal duty to protect her from the BEC. The High Court agreed and ordered the firm to pay her back, but that was reversed on appeal to the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal).
• Critically, the SCA held that in cases of “pure economic loss”, creditors have no general legal duty to protect their debtors from the interception of payments, and there is no inference of “wrongfulness”. So, it is up to the client in such a claim to prove not only negligence by the business, but also wrongfulness.
• In this particular case the Court found that the buyer had “ample means to protect herself”. It was not the conveyancers but the compromise of her email account that enabled the criminals to intercept her emails. She could have paid by bank guarantee but chose to pay in cash. Moreover, she had been warned by the estate agency about this very risk and had heeded the warning and verified the agency’s banking details before paying in the deposit. She could, and should, have taken the same precaution before paying the conveyancers.
• Bottom line – the buyer “must in the circumstances take responsibility for her failure to protect herself against a known risk” and must bear her R5.5m loss herself.

How to protect yourself – 5 steps to take immediately

1. Whether you are business or client, protect your systems from being hacked. Constantly update all your software and anti-virus/anti-malware programs. Use 2FA (two factor authentication) on your accounts. If it is your email system that is hacked and causes the loss, you have a problem! As a business you could also be in trouble for breaching POPIA (the Protection of Personal Information Act).
2. Constantly warn everyone about the risks of email interception and fraud and remind them never to accept any change of banking details notifications without checking.
3. Protect all attachments from alteration (including PDFs!).
4. Before making deposits, phone to confirm all banking details you are given via email. Make sure to phone a number you have confirmed to be genuine – criminals regularly provide fake contact numbers in intercepted emails and documents.
5. Carefully check all email addresses as scammers often make subtle changes – in this case for example the buyer failed to notice that the word “africa” in an email had been changed to “afirca”. Other common dodges are changing numerals or adding/removing hyphens.

Above all, treat all email communications as inherently unsafe and don’t let your guard down for a second!

Many of us will either be involved in trusts as trustees or will contract with them as outsiders at one time or another – often in the context of a property transaction.

Beware! As a recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision starkly reminds us, trusts are strange creatures, and you need to tread carefully in dealing with them. We’ll look at questions of whether trustees must always act jointly and unanimously or whether it is enough for a majority of them to sign resolutions and documents. Our punchline is a strong warning note on what to look for when contracting with any trust.

“Externally, trustees cannot disagree. In the external sphere the Trust functions by virtue of its resolutions, which have to be supported by the full complement of the Trust body.” (Extract from judgment below)

A recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment provides yet another reminder to tread carefully when contracting with trusts. Your agreements with a trust will be invalid and unenforceable if the trustees acting for the trust weren’t properly authorised to bind the trust.

But must trustee resolutions always be taken unanimously by all of the appointed trustees to be valid, or will a majority decision ever suffice? The SCA addressed that question in the context of a trust seeking to escape from a suretyship which had not been unanimously agreed to and signed by all three trustees acting jointly –

When a majority trustee decision isn’t enough

• A creditor sued a property trust for payment under a suretyship given to it by the trust. The trust countered that the suretyship was invalid because the resolution authorising trustees to sign the suretyship was not authorised and signed by all three trustees, but only by two of them.
• Indeed, only two of the trustees had attended the trustee meeting at which the suretyship was discussed. The third trustee had not been at the meeting and did not sign either the resolution authorising the suretyship to be signed or the actual suretyship.
• The meeting itself was in order, in that the trust deed provided for two trustees to constitute a quorum for meetings. But the deed also provided that a unanimous decision was required for the trust “to conduct business on behalf of and for the benefit of the Trust, and to employ trust property in such business”.
• In any event, as the Court put it: “…trustees must act jointly in taking decisions and resolutions for the benefit of the Trust and beneficiaries thereof, unless a specific majority clause provides otherwise” and “Even when the trust deed provides for a majority decision, the resolutions must be signed by all the trustees. (Emphasis added)
• As it was neatly put in an earlier High Court decision: “A majority of trustees in office may form a quorum internally at a trust meeting, but can still not externally bind a trust by acting together … It is not the majority vote, but rather the resolution by the entire complement which binds a trust estate. A trust operates on resolutions and not votes.” (Emphasis added)
• As only two of the three trustees had acted for the trust in this case, the Court held both the resolution and the suretyship to be invalid and unenforceable.

So, what does that mean for you in practice when contracting with a trust?

Internal trust matters: Internal matters (such as using trust income for the benefit of beneficiaries or administering trust assets) “may be debated and put to a vote, thereafter the voice of the majority will prevail.”

External trust matters: As an outsider however your dealings with the trust will relate to external trust matters (transactions relating to trust property with the outside world such as buying and selling property, signing suretyships and the like) and here unanimity is essential for the trust to be bound. Even when the trust deed allows majority decisions, all the trustees must still participate in the decision-making and all of them must sign a resolution to make it valid externally. Make sure therefore that all trustees signing for the trust have the power to do so per the trust deed and by a valid, unanimous resolution.

“A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on” (Samuel Goldwyn)

• A property developer had previously employed an estate agent to source development property for it. No written mandate was ever signed.
• The agent, relying on what she said was a verbal mandate to find a further development property, introduced the developer to a property which it decided to buy. An agreement of sale, including a clause confirming that the agent was entitled to R450,000 in commission, was signed by both buyer and seller. The agent had thus fulfilled her mandate and was the effective cause of the sale, the developer being willing and able to buy the property. In the ordinary course the agent would then have been entitled to her commission on fulfillment of all suspensive conditions (“conditions precedent”).
• However, when the developer cancelled the sale, it refused to pay the agent her commission, denying firstly that any mandate had been given, and secondly arguing that in any event commission was only payable against actual transfer of the property from the seller to the buyer.
• Long story short, the Court dismissed the developer’s attempts to convince it that there was no mandate at all, or that the suspensive conditions had not been fulfilled, or that the mandate included either an implied or a “tacit” term to the effect that commission would only be payable against transfer.
• The developer was ordered to pay the agent’s commission and is left R450k (and legal costs) down, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

1. Sign a written, clear mandate

   Both parties could have saved themselves all the aggravation, delay and cost of litigation had they only entered into a written mandate agreement with clear, simple terms accurately recording the terms and conditions they had agreed upon.

   As we said above, most agencies insist on written mandates anyway, but make sure you aren’t the exception!

2. Specify that commission is payable against transfer

   Most sale agreements will provide that commission is earned on performance of the agent’s mandate and fulfilment of any suspensive or resolutive conditions (bond clauses and the like).

   But when is the commission actually payable to the agency? As it is normally deducted from the buyer’s deposit held in trust, both seller and buyer should check that it will not be paid out before transfer (or, in the event of a breach or cancellation of the sale, on that date). And whilst most standard mandates and sale agreements will provide exactly that, you must check because every agreement will be different. If there is a clause allowing payment of commission before transfer, don’t accept it without specific legal advice.

   From an agent’s perspective, further clauses are of course essential to protect your commission payment in the event that the sale is frustrated or doesn’t proceed – normally the agreement is that a defaulting party (buyer or seller) is liable to pay the full commission on default.

All sellers and buyers should understand both what constitutes a “defect” in a house for sale, and the extent and limits of a seller’s duty to disclose defects to prospective buyers.

A recent High Court award of damages, to a buyer who only became aware of substantial damp problems in the house after taking transfer, discusses the effect of a standard “voetstoots” clause on a buyer’s claim for redress. What did the buyer have to prove? How did the mandatory “property condition report” impact on the seller’s liability? We’ll look at how the Court addressed those questions …

“[w]here a seller recklessly tells a half-truth or knows the facts but does not reveal them because he or she has not bothered to consider their significance, this may also amount to fraud” … “a willful abstention from establishing the true facts does not constitute a lack of knowledge” (Extracts from the judgment below)

Consider this all-too-common scenario: You buy your dream house and happily move in. Only then do you discover that the house has major defects, which were never disclosed to you by the seller. You demand the seller pays the repair costs but the seller refuses. So off to court you go, claiming either damages or a reduction in the purchase price.

What must you prove to win your case? Let’s consider a recent High Court decision addressing just that question.

Concealing the damp with paint and Polyfilla

• The buyer of a house only became aware of substantial damp problems in the ceilings and walls after taking transfer and when planning renovations. The damp was caused both by rising damp, and by water flowing down into the walls due to failed waterproofing.
• The sellers (a divorced couple) refused to pay for the repairs (costing just under R245k) and the buyer sued them for either damages or a reduction in the purchase price.
• Highly relevant – as we shall see below – was the fact that twice in the year of sale the ex-wife (living alone in the house and tasked with selling it after the divorce) had called in contractors to repaint and carry out “cosmetic repairs” – extensive repairs judging by the drum of paint and 24kg of Polyfilla involved.

What the buyer must prove

The matter ended up in the High Court, which considered what the buyer must prove to succeed in a claim of this nature. –

• Defects: That there were defects in the property at the time of the sale which “affected the use and value of the property”. The buyer had no difficulty in proving that the damp problems qualified as defects for this purpose.
• Latent, not patent: That the damp was a latent defect, not “obvious or patent” to the buyer. That’s important because latent defects are defects that “would not have been visible or discoverable upon inspection by the ordinary purchaser” – so if the damp was a “patent” defect, the buyer should have picked it up. The buyer in this case was able to convince the Court that the damp was not discoverable by her at the time of sale because all traces of it had been concealed by the remedial work referred to above.
• Fraud: That the damp as a latent defect was not covered by the voetstoots clause, a standard clause in deeds of sale which specifies that the property is sold “as is” and without any warranty. The effect of such a clause is that the buyer agrees to carry the risk of latent defects, but only if there was no fraud on the part of the seller. So the buyer had to establish fraud, by proving two things –

  – That the sellers were aware of the damp and its consequences.

  – That they deliberately concealed it with the intention to defraud.

Proving fraud – how relevant is the “property condition report”?

Fraud, said the Court, “is not lightly imputed [but] it may nevertheless be inferred when such inference is supported by the objective facts revealed by the evidence.” The following factors were central to the Court’s conclusion that both sellers had acted with fraudulent intent –

• The sellers’ protestations that either they were unaware of the damp problems or had not intended to fraudulently conceal them found no favour with the Court on the facts – which included the extent and nature of the re-painting carried out.
• The ex-wife’s claim to have been ignorant of the damp issues, despite the extent and nature of the “cosmetic repairs” she carried out, was rejected. As the Court put it: “At best for her, she remained willfully ignorant of the underlying cause of the issues in the paintwork; she could not honestly have believed that the core issue had been remediated.”
• The ex-husband for his part admitted that he had known of damp issues in two rooms because of bubbling paint and a smell of damp, with the Court concluding that: “He appears to have taken no steps to ascertain how extensive or serious those problems were – but a willful abstention from establishing the true facts does not constitute a lack of knowledge.”
• Perhaps most damningly of all, both the ex-husband and the ex-wife had signed the mandatory Property Condition Report (“defects disclosure form”), in which they specifically stated that there were no latent defects in the property, including “dampness in walls/ floors”.

The Court held that the buyer had proved fraud by both sellers and confirmed her award of R244,855 in damages for the repairs.

Imagine what a disaster it would be if, after you have bought your new dream house and moved the family in, you are told you must vacate immediately because no “occupancy certificate” was ever issued.

How can that be? What is an occupancy certificate? Is it vital to have one? Is there a general duty on a seller to provide you with one? We address those questions in the context of a recent High Court decision which confirms that it’s up to you to protect yourself in that regard! We’ll show you how.

“…there is no obligation on the [seller] to obtain an occupancy certificate and to furnish it to the [buyers]” (Extract from judgment below)

Imagine this – you buy your dream home, pay for it, take transfer into your name, and move in. But then disaster strikes. The Municipality tells you no occupancy certificate was ever issued for the property and that you must vacate. Now.

Both buyers and sellers should take note of a recent High Court decision highlighting the importance to buyers of getting an occupation certificate from the seller before putting in any offer or insisting on a clause in the sale agreement requiring the seller to produce one before transfer.

What is an occupancy certificate and why is it vital to have one?

It’s confirmation by your local authority that the building complies with the approved building plans and that all other requirements have been met.

Without it, it is unlawful for anyone to occupy the building. You can be ordered to vacate, but that’s not all – other risks include your insurers declining any claims you make, municipal penalties for non-compliance, perhaps threats of a demolition order. You and your family could even be in physical danger if the non-compliance results in electrical hazards, fire risks, structural failure, or the like.

Although the municipality can “grant permission in writing to use the building before the issue of the certificate of occupancy”, that will be a temporary permission only, probably only for a short period and with stringent conditions.

The demolition threat and the court application

• Having bought a property from the owner/builder’s deceased estate, the buyers took transfer and happily moved in.
• To their horror, when a municipal building inspector was called in to inspect the building for defects, it came to light that although building plans had been approved 30 years ago, no occupancy certificate had ever been issued.
• The municipality “suggested” that the buyers vacate immediately and threatened to demolish the building, citing a number of outstanding certificates – completion certificates for the structural and storm water, an electrical compliance certificate, a plumbers’ compliance certificate, a glazing certificate, a gas installation certificate, and a soil poisoning certificate.
• The buyers demanded that the executor of the deceased estate obtain an occupancy certificate for them, and when she refused, they asked the High Court to order her to do so.
• The buyers pointed out that, per a standard clause in their sale agreement, the seller was obliged to give them “vacant possession”. That, they argued, meant “lawful possession” requiring the seller to provide them with an occupancy certificate before transfer.
• The seller (executor) replied that she was not bound by the sale or any other agreement to provide a certificate, that there is no general obligation on a seller to furnish a purchaser of an immovable property with an occupation certificate, that the buyers had been given vacant (“free and undisturbed”) possession, and that anyway the buyers as the new owners should now be the ones to apply for the certificate.

The seller wins, and a warning for buyers

The Court refused to order the seller to provide an occupancy certificate, finding that despite the fact that occupancy of the house was unlawful without the certificate, the buyers had “…clearly received vacant possession. [They] received what they purchased. They had no concerns about what they were purchasing and there is no indication in the papers that they enquired about the occupancy certificate at the time of the sale or prior to taking transfer. They have alternatives available to them … and failed to explain why, as the owner of the property, they have not taken any of the steps available to them.”

In regard to the voetstoots (“sold as is” clause) the Court quoted from a Supreme Court of Appeal decision: “…the absence of the statutory approvals for building alterations, or the other authorisations that render the property compliant with prescribed building standards … does not render the property unfit for the purpose for which it was purchased.”

Perhaps the outcome would be different if a buyer is able to prove that the seller knew of the lack of an occupancy certificate and concealed that, or if a buyer sues for cancellation of the sale agreement or for damages. But that is speculation.

What is clear is this: The occupancy certificate is a vital document and as a buyer you should insist that the seller gives it to you before you make an offer, or that at least a term in the sale agreement obliges the seller to give it to you before transfer.