Welcome to Miltons Matsemela - The Conveyancers
Visit Us
Call Us
+27 (0)21 521 1300
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 May 2019

Directors at War and the Liquidation Option – A Tale of Sibling Rivalry

“Family quarrels are bitter things. They don’t go according to any rules” (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

What happens when a company’s board is deadlocked to the extent that directors can no longer agree on the decisions vital to the proper running of the company and its business?

If all else fails (and this is usually a last-prize option), liquidating the company and placing it into the hands of independent liquidators may be your only choice.

A sad tale (which played out recently in the High Court) of sibling in-fighting that reduced a successful and profitable property development company to dispute and deadlock provides a perfect example. We’ll discuss the Court’s decision, its reasoning, and the three grounds on which a court may liquidate a solvent company.

A company’s directors have both the power and the duty to manage the company’s affairs for its benefit.

When two or more directors are in place, it’s perhaps natural for the occasional disagreement to arise between them. Indeed, regular expression of a variety of different viewpoints and ideas can make for a strong, dynamic board and business. Provided, that is, that the directors are in the end result still able to agree on the decisions vital to their company’s continued operations.

What happens though when disagreements and disputes escalate and make it impossible to continue running the business? Typically, communications break down to the extent that decision-making is paralysed. First prize will of course always be an amicable settlement – through formal mediation perhaps, or negotiation to buy out a dissenting director’s shareholding. But if these attempts fail, the company is in big trouble.

Fortunately our law offers you an effective remedy in the form of the “just and equitable” liquidation. It comes with its own risks and can be costly, so it’s often regarded as a last-resort option (ask your lawyer for advice on the various other remedies that may be available to you), but it works. A recent High Court decision illustrates…

Sister v brothers in a deadlocked development company

  • A sister and her two brothers owned, through their trusts, equal shares in a farm (partially inherited from their father and partially purchased from their uncle’s deceased estate).
  • They were also the three directors (and, again through trusts, the equal shareholders) of a company formed to subdivide, develop and sell residential plots on parts of the farm.
  • The company operated successfully and profitably for many years, paying substantial dividends to the shareholders, and has always been and remains solvent.
  • Trouble began brewing it seems several years ago, primarily between the sister and the brother in charge of the day-to-day running of the company’s business. Serious disagreements arose around an unhappy saga of sibling fallout – including the disputed existence of a partnership, alleged fraudulent stripping of over R6m by the brothers, and a litany of purported personal and familial abuse.
  • All these allegations were hotly denied, although an undertaking by the brothers to not “emotionally abuse” their sister in a settlement agreement at one point clearly indicated to the Court that the relationship breakdown was not confined to the siblings’ professional affairs. The relationship between the directors and shareholders was, said the Court, “that of partners in a family context”.
  • The sister applied for the liquidation of the company on the grounds that it was “just and equitable”. This is a procedure provided in the Companies Act for a court to have the discretion – even though a company is solvent – to liquidate it in order that an independent liquidator can take over.
  • The brothers opposed the application, claiming that there was no deadlock in the functioning of the company or between the directors and shareholders, but the Court disagreed. Its order liquidating the company, and its reasons for doing so, provide a useful summary of how this particular law works in practice…

3 grounds on which to wind up a solvent company

  1. The Companies Act allows a court to liquidate a solvent company on application by director/s or shareholder/s on any of three grounds –
    • “The directors are deadlocked in the management of the company, and the shareholders are unable to break the deadlock, an
    • Irreparable injury to the company is resulting, or may result, from the deadlock; or
  2. The company’s business cannot be conducted to the advantage of shareholders generally, as a result of the deadlock;
  3. The shareholders are deadlocked in voting power, and have failed for a period that includes at least two consecutive annual general meeting dates, to elect successors to directors whose terms have expired; or

It is otherwise just and equitable for the company to be wound up.”

That last “just and equitable” ground gives courts a wide discretion to reach a decision based on all the facts of each particular case. The Court in this matter found that the involvement of all the directors in the business had effectively come to a standstill and took into account the facts that there had not been a directors’ meeting since 2014 plus the sister had refused to sign the latest financial statements.

It concluded that “the directors do not communicate and there is clearly immense personal animosity between them, and a lack of trust and confidence”, making it difficult to see how the company could continue its business. The lack of substantiation provided by the sister to back up some of her disputed allegations did not, said the Court, detract “from the fact of the breakdown in their relationship, and the lack of trust and confidence”.

It was therefore just and equitable that the company be wound up.

30 May 2019

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Can You Differentiate Without Unfairly Discriminating?

“Prohibition of unfair discrimination: No person may unfairly discriminate, directly or indirectly, against an employee, in any employment policy or practice, on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibility, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, HIV status, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language, birth or on any other arbitrary ground” (from the Employment Equity Act)

“Unfair discrimination” in the workplace is both unlawful and severely penalised by our courts, so it’s vital to distinguish it from lawful “differentiation”.

Most employers and employees will have heard of the “equal pay for equal work” principle in our labour laws, but there is still a lot of uncertainty over its reach, and over when an employer may fairly and lawfully differentiate between employees carrying out the same duties and/or work of equal value.

Let’s clarify with reference to a recent Labour Court decision concerning two “surveillance auditors” in a casino, whose unequal pay packages sparked allegations of unfair discrimination on the basis of both race and gender.

Our employment laws and labour courts come down heavily on any unfair discrimination in the workplace, but it’s not always easy to decide whether “differentiation” between employees is or is not “unfair discrimination”.

Take for instance a recent Labour Court case where a black female employee complained to the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration) about the higher salary paid to her white male colleague.

They were both employed as “surveillance auditors” in a casino with the same job descriptions, doing the same work on a daily basis, graded at the same level, and reporting to the same surveillance shift manager. Nevertheless her remuneration package was nearly half of her colleague’s – unfair discrimination, she said, on the grounds of race and gender.

The CCMA agreed with her and ordered her employer to (1) place her in the same salary bracket as her colleague and (2) pay her a once-off amount of the annual difference in their packages.

Requirements and defences

The Labour Court however set aside the CCMA’s award and ordered a re-hearing before a different commissioner. Its decision, although based on “reviewable irregularities” in the CCMA (in itself a topic of interest to labour lawyers more than to their clients) neatly summarises the legal principles as they applied in this case. Principles important to both employers and employees –

  1. Where unfair discrimination is alleged, the onus is on the employer to prove that the discrimination did not take place or that any discrimination that did take place was rational and not unfair, or is otherwise justifiable.
  2. There is a general requirement on employers to “ensure that employees are not paid different remuneration for work of equal value based on race, gender or disability”.
    1. “Work of equal value” means work that –
      • “Is the same as the work of another employee of the same employer, if their work is identical or interchangeable;
      • Is substantially the same as the work of another employee employed by that employer, if the work performed by the employees is sufficiently similar that they can reasonably be considered to be performing the same job, even if their work is not identical or interchangeable;
      • Is of the same value as the work of another employee of the same employer in a different job, if their respective occupations are accorded the same value …”.
      • (In this case of course there was no dispute that the first category – same work – applied, so the other categories were not analysed by the Court, but in many workplaces they will be highly relevant.)
  3. Where there is differentiation, an employer can raise various defences to justify it – seniority, length of service, qualifications and the like. In this case the employer relied on the male employee’s superior (30 years’ worth) relevant experience in security, much better qualifications and “market forces” which it said forced it to match his existing package in order to recruit him.

The commissioner’s failure to adequately address these defences was central to the Court’s decision here, but the practical issue is that as an employer, whatever defence/s you raise, you will have to prove “rationality, fairness or other justifiability”.

As always, our labour laws being as complex as they are (the above is of necessity just a brief summary of a particular case), and the penalties for getting them wrong, take specific legal advice in any doubt!

30 May 2019

Business Rescue: Are Your Suretyships Enforceable? A R5.5m Lesson for Directors and Creditors

“Some people use one-half their ingenuity to get into debt, and the other half to avoid paying it” (George Prentice, newspaper editor and author)

When a company goes into business rescue, creditors are often in for a beating. So as a creditor, if you had the foresight to cover your position upfront with personal suretyships from individuals with assets (normally the directors of the debtor company), you will no doubt be keen to recoup your losses by calling in those suretyships asap.

What happens though if you assent to a business rescue plan whereby the debtor company’s debt to you is extinguished? Does that also extinguish the surety’s personal liability to you?

Let’s have a look at the lessons for both creditors and directors in a recent case where two sureties tried to dodge a R5.5m claim in the High Court with that very argument …

You are owed a lot of money by a company that goes into business rescue. The business rescue plan provides for creditors like you to accept a dividend of only a few cents in the Rand in settlement of your debt. You stand to lose heavily.

But perhaps there’s hope yet – a director with assets has signed personal suretyship. Can the director now say “sorry, you adopted the business rescue plan so your claim no longer exists”, and refuse to pay you?

The directors’ defence

  • A creditor was owed R6.5m for the lease of mining equipment to a company which was placed under business rescue. In terms of a business rescue plan approved by the creditor it was paid only a portion of its claim, losing its right to claim anything further from the debtor company.
  • The two directors of the debtor had signed a deed of suretyship in terms of which they stood as co-sureties and co-principal debtors with their company for all amounts owing.
  • The creditor duly sued the directors for its shortfall of some R5.5m The directors’ defence was that they were not liable because –
    • The suretyship entitled the creditor to go after them only for “any sum which after the receipt of such dividend/s or payment/s may remain owing by the Debtor.” (Own underlining).
    • Nothing remained owing by the debtor which had been released from its debt by the business rescue plan.
  • In other words, argued the directors, nothing was owed by the debtor company, so they were liable for nothing.
  • Not so, said the Court. That “would render the terms of the deed of suretyship nonsensical and militates against the very reason for a creditor obtaining security against the indebtedness of a debtor i.e. to mitigate the risk of the debtor being unable to fulfil its obligations due to inter alia business rescue.” The business rescue plan made no provision for the position of sureties and therefore “the liability of the sureties is in my view preserved. And while the debt may not be enforceable against [the company], it does not detract from the obligation of the sureties to pay in the circumstances of this case.” In other words, a surety’s liability is unaffected by the business rescue unless the plan itself makes specific provision for the situation of sureties.
  • Bottom line – the directors must personally cough up the R5.5m (plus interest and costs).

Lessons for directors and creditors

The outcome here could have been very different had the wording of either this particular suretyship or the business rescue plan supported the directors’ defence.

Creditors – when securing your claim with a director’s suretyship check that you are fully covered in any form of business failure situation. And ensure that a business rescue plan specifically provides that its adoption does not release sureties.

Directors – when you sign personal surety understand exactly what you are letting yourself in for. And if you are unlucky enough to find yourself in the middle of a business rescue, actively manage your personal liability danger – particularly when it comes to the wording of the rescue plan.

30 May 2019

Tax Freedom Day 2019 Has Arrived!

“Untold Wealth: That which does not appear on income tax returns” (Anonymous)

“Tax Freedom Day” is the first day of the year that we South Africans (as a whole) have earned enough to pay off the Tax Man and to finally start working for ourselves.

It arrived this year on 18 May. That’s five days later than in 2018, and a whole 37 days later than in 1994 when we first started measuring this – not a happy trend, nor unfortunately one likely to be reversed in future.

But it could be worse. Taxpayers in a lot of other countries are still working for government – Norwegians for example only celebrate on 29 July!

30 May 2019

Rescission of Judgment

So, you need to clear your name?

Imagine having default judgment (a Court ruling entered against party X, due to failure to defend a claim that was initiated by party Y) entered against your name as a result of a summons that you did not even receive. Imagine your application for credit being rejected as a result of a judgment against your name. Situations like these are unfortunately more common than one thinks. We have been dealing with a number of these cases lately, so we thought we would explain a little of the background to this and how to try and solve it.

Essentially, a default judgment is attached to your name when a Court makes a finding that you are liable for a debt, either if you do not defend the claim or during a case if you fail to act in accordance with the Court Rules. Credit bureau’s then register these judgments and log it to your specific credit profile, in effect blacklisting you. South African law does however allow you to approach the Court and request that the judgment be removed. This is done by way of an application for Rescission of Judgment.

There are three grounds on which one may rescind a judgment in the Magistrates Court:

  • If you have a defence to the claim that you did not raise (because, for example you did not receive the Summons). In these cases, you need to apply for the judgment to be rescinded within twenty (20) days of finding out about it;
  • If the judgment debt has been paid within a reasonable time (of finding out about the judgment);
  • If the judgment creditor (person/company who obtained the judgment) gives his/her consent to the rescission.

Less common is when judgment is obtained against you in the High Court. Unfortunately, in this case, only option 1 above will apply. The removal of a High Court judgment is not an automatic right even when you have settled the debt or the judgment creditor consented to such removal. If you do not bring an application to remove the judgment, it will appear on your credit profile for a mandatory period of five (5) years (as per the National Credit Act).

When a Court decides whether or not to grant a rescission it is likely to look at several factors including:

  • Whether you applied for Rescission of Judgment within twenty (20) days of finding out about the judgment (and if not, whether there was an excuse for the delay);
  • Whether you have paid the debt;
  • Whether the judgment creditor (person/company who obtained the judgment) has consented to the rescission;
  • Whether you were in wilful default i.e. you received the Summons but ignored it or whether you never received the Summons in the first place;
  • Whether the judgment was granted by default (a ruling entered against party X, due to failure to defend a claim that was initiated by party Y) or after trial (in which case it will not be listed by the credit bureau).

It is imperative to understand that merely applying for Rescission of Judgment will not always result in it being granted. Should your rescission be granted, remember to inform the various credit bureau’s in order for them to remove the judgment from your credit profile.

Storm Barry
Miltons Matsemela
May 2019

10 May 2019
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

Estate Agents: Securing Your Trade Secrets (and Your Commission)

“In short, it [a Fidelity Fund Certificate] is a licence to practice without which you cannot practice.” (Extract from judgment below)

A valid Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC) is a necessity for any estate agency. Without it, no agent can claim commission, and now a new High Court decision suggests that the agency’s contracts generally could be at risk of invalidity.

The case involved an intern agent employed by an agency with a restraint of trade clause. When the intern left and joined a rival agency, her erstwhile employer tried to enforce the restraint of trade clause against her.

It was in for a very rude shock indeed. For 5 years after its conversion from a CC to a company, its FFC was still issued in the name of the CC. Big mistake…

As an estate agent you will know that without a valid Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC) you are not entitled to any commission for the successful sales or leases you put together. All your hard work in fulfilling your mandate will come to naught. Your client need pay you nothing.

As a recent High Court case warns, you will also be unable to enforce any restraints of trade you enter into with your employees. And that’s a major risk if your trade secrets are as valuable to you as they are to most agencies.

The company that converted from a CC without changing its FFC

  • A close corporation (CC) trading as an estate agency held an FFC.
  • It converted to a company, retaining the same name so that the only change was the “CC” at the end of its name becoming “(Pty) Ltd”.
  • The agency’s fatal mistake was that for 5 years after the conversion it continued to hold FFCs in the CC’s name. During that period it employed an intern agent in terms of an Intern Agency Agreement which included a restraint of trade clause prohibiting the employee “from engaging or participating in the property industry for a period of six (6) months after the termination of the agreement”.
  • When the intern agent resigned and joined another agency, the company approached the High Court for an order interdicting and restraining her “from utilising and/or communicating confidential information relating to its business affairs, property listings, pricing, valuations etc” and “from operating in any capacity in the residential property market” in a list of named suburbs for 6 months.
  • In the 18 months she had been with them, said the agency, she had “gained knowledge of valuable importance pertaining to the business of the [agency]. To that extent this matter was of cardinal importance to the [agency].”
  • The agency argued that the FFC issued to the CC should be deemed to have been issued to the company “because it is the ‘same’ entity”. Rejecting this, the Court said the FFC had been issued for 5 years to a different, non-existing entity. Moreover an agency must if operating in a corporate entity have separate FFCs for all its directors (if a company) or members (if a CC) in addition to its own.
  • Accordingly, said the Court, the company could not act as an estate agent and its internship agreement incorporating the restraint of trade was “null and void thus unenforceable”.

A final thought for agencies

Check and double check that all your FFCs are in order and in the correct names. Change nothing in your holding structure without having a plan in place to update all your FFCs immediately.

Take into account possible administrative delays, the Court here specifically warning that “It is not enough that the application is being processed or some other hiccup is in the process of being solved. The provisions are clear and peremptory.” Either you have a valid FFC in place at the critical time or you don’t.

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.

© 2016 Miltons Matsemela. All rights reserved.

Site by Cubefive Studio.

Scroll Up