January 13, 2021
“Home, Sweet Home”
2021 is shaping up to be a busy year for both property sales and home builders, thanks in no small measure to the pandemic-induced concept of “work from home, live anywhere”.
If you are one of the many landowners about to invite a team of contractors onto your property to build your new dream home, or holiday house, or perhaps a house-to-let on an investment property, remember to check for full compliance with the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act. It offers you, as the “housing consumer”, significant protection against dishonest contractors and faulty workmanship, plus access to its mediation services should any dispute arise. Your home is probably one of your more significant assets so it will be time well spent.
On the other side of the coin, any building contractor or property developer not complying with the Act risks both criminal prosecution (with a penalty of up to a R25,000 fine or a year’s jail time) and loss of all rights to claim payment from your client. You could, in other words, lose everything – as a recent High Court judgment shows…
High Court: Builder registration is not enough
For the builder, first step is registration with the NHBRC (National Home Builders Registration Council), but a recent High Court decision confirms that there is also a vital second step – enrolment of the house itself. Note that the NHBRC certificate of enrolment must be issued before construction starts.
The facts were these –
- A builder (a close corporation) contracted to build five homes for a housing consumer. The builder had been duly registered with the NHBRC.
- But, as it was involved in a dispute with the NHBRC, the builder did not itself enrol the homes. They were registered under the name of another entity.
- The builder however carried out the work itself, and in due course it sued the housing consumer for R1.1m.
- The builder lost, the Court holding that because of non-compliance with the registration requirements, it was “not entitled to claim compensation or payment for services rendered.”
- The end result – the builder (both the close corporation and its members) leaves with nothing. Except of course a doubtless substantial legal bill and the risk of prosecution for giving false or misleading information to the NHBRC.
Before you build…
- Make sure your builder is registered with the NHBRC and get a copy of the registration certificate – check that it is not expired. Go to www.nhbrc.org.za, call the NHBRC on 0800 200 824 or email it at firstname.lastname@example.org. Note that if you are an “owner builder” you may be exempt.
- You must have the NHBRC “certificate of proof of enrolment” of the house before any construction starts (you will need it anyway to get a bond for new house construction).
- Check that you are dealing with an experienced and reliable builder by asking for at least three recent client references, visit any active building sites to check quality of construction and materials for yourself, check with the NHBRC for the total number of houses enrolled by the builder and for any complaints lodged (check also on online consumer complaint sites for any negative or positive reports).
- Sign a full written contract with the builder, but only after your lawyer has checked it for you. Look for things like timelines, detailed building specs and plans, compliance with NHBRC technical requirements and its Home Building Manual, warranties given, deposits payable, agreed progress payments and the like.
- Make sure that all necessary municipal requirements have been met and that building plans have been approved.
- Keep your neighbours in the loop every step of the way – there is nothing like clear and open communication to nip any unhappiness or problems in the bud!
December 17, 2020
“Who acts in haste repents at leisure” (Aesop)
Our Festive Season is always a busy time for property sales, and this year should be no different – pent up demand, increased affordability, relocations, record low interest rates and availability of bonds are all factors likely to drive a busy property market for at least the next few months.
If you are one of the many property sellers or buyers planning to take advantage, you are in for an exciting time, and as far as practical advice goes you have a treasure trove of it awaiting you on the internet.
Just don’t neglect the legal aspects – rushing in without legal advice risks falling foul of any one of the many pitfalls out there, and if that happens you really will “repent at leisure”.
Here’s 12 reasons to call your attorney first
Let’s look at some of the benefits of making your lawyer your very first port of call –
- Local, specialised knowledge: Lawyers have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening locally – what is happening in the property market, who is selling and who is buying, what marketing strategies are producing results, which banks are granting bonds on the best terms, and so on. All invaluable information for both sellers and buyers.
- Choosing a conveyancer: As a seller insist on choosing which conveyancing attorney will attend to the transfer in the Deeds Office. Pick a lawyer you trust to act quickly and efficiently, protecting your interests at every step.
- The Offer to Purchase/Deed of Sale: Typically a written offer from a buyer becomes the Deed of Sale on acceptance by the seller, and it is that Sale Agreement that is at the heart of whether a sale proceeds smoothly or whether it devolves into a nightmare of cost, delay and dispute. Prevention being as always better than cure, both buyer and seller should sign nothing until they fully understand and accept all the terms and conditions in the document. Our law will with very few exceptions hold you to your agreements – and if you sign in haste you are likely to regret at leisure!
- Agent’s commission: Don’t risk any misunderstanding or dispute if you decide to market your property through an agent or agents – in a worst-case scenario when dealing with multiple agents, you could even risk double commission. Have your lawyer check the agent’s mandate before you sign it, and as a buyer look for any undertakings you may be giving in the sale agreement regarding commission disputes.
- Other costs: Both parties need to fully consider their total costs, and not all of them are immediately apparent. As a seller for example you need to consider things like bond cancellation costs, compliance certificate costs, tax risks (capital gains tax can be a big factor here) and the like. Buyers of course need to plan for transfer duty, transfer costs etc. Ask your lawyer to give you an estimate.
- Bond clauses: Our courts are regularly called upon to resolve “bond clause” disputes. A properly worded clause, correctly recording what you have both agreed to, is essential. As a seller ask about the “72-hour clause” concept if you are selling subject to the buyer getting a bond and you think you may get another and better offer in the interim.
- Other suspensive and resolutive clauses: A “suspensive” clause is one that says the agreement is “suspended” until the happening of something – for example the granting of a bond to the buyer as we covered above, or the granting of a sub-division or something similar. A “resolutive” clause on the other hand provides that the agreement is binding on signature but falls away on something happening. Both can cause all sorts of confusion and their interpretation is best left to the experts.
- Views, alterations, home businesses, title deed restrictions etc: As a buyer if you have fallen in love with a house because of its spectacular sea views for example, or because it is perfect for adding on that second story or granny flat, or because you plan to move your pandemic-hit business into the garage, have your lawyer check the title deeds and local town planning regulations for what is allowed and what is not. Many a bitter neighbour dispute has its roots in building extensions that block views or exceed local zoning restrictions, or in objections to business activities on residential property. A title deed inspection will also reveal any hidden pitfalls such as servitudes, usufructs and the like.
- Investment Properties: Property can be an excellent investment, but good upfront advice is essential, particularly if you plan to undertake any development or alterations. Understand the costs, the tax implications, and the risks of property “flipping” if you plan to resell, or of managing tenants if you plan to be a landlord.
- Who will the buyer be? Trusts, joint ownership, life partners and other considerations: Should you buy in your personal name or hold your house in a trust or company? Should you buy jointly with your spouse or life partner? These are critical decisions, involving questions of estate and tax planning, marital regime if married, cohabitation agreements if not married, financial status, risk profile in the commercial sense, and a host of other factors. Not getting this 100% right upfront is a recipe for disaster.
- Defects and the old “voetstoots” chestnut: Avoid any risk of dispute over defects, be they “patent” (easily identified on inspection) or “latent” (hidden or non-obvious) with a properly structured voetstoets (“as is” or “without any warranty”) clause. Buyers – bear in mind the old “buyer beware” maxim. Sellers – manage your potential liability for undisclosed defects.
- Community Schemes: Buying into a community scheme comes with many advantages, provided that you understand fully what you are letting yourself in for. For example, our courts will hold you to whatever housing complex rules and regulations apply. It will avail you nothing to say you weren’t aware of them when buying. In a sectional title development understand exactly what you are buying and how the concepts of “exclusive use” and “common property” areas affect you.
Every situation will be different so tell your attorney everything that could possibly be relevant.
November 9, 2020
“By subscribing to the constitution, each member accepts the benefits stipulated in his or her favour by the other subscribing members. One of those benefits is that there shall be rules of conduct to give substance to the objectives and rights promised and conferred by the constitution … and that the other members will be required to comply with them … and that any breaches thereof will be called to account” (Extract from judgment below)
There are many advantages to living in residential estates and sectional title developments, but there are also rules and responsibilities.
A common source of friction in complexes is parking, leading to complaints such as “there’s never any parking for my visitors because owners hog the visitor bays for their own cars” and “our complex roads are a nightmare of parked cars jutting out of driveways”.
In yet another reminder to community scheme buyers and owners to fully understand and comply with all the rules and regulations you are agreeing to, the High Court recently barred a home owner from parking his vehicles anywhere except in his own garage and driveway.
- The owner in question lives in a residential estate governed by a Homeowners Association (HOA), one of whose rules forbids the parking of owners’ vehicles either in visitors’ bays or in the street.
- Able to park only one of his three vehicles in his own double garage (because of household equipment stored there), an owner persistently parked his second vehicle outside his garage (its size meant that it jutted into the street), and his third vehicle in a visitor’s bay.
- Other owners complained and the HOA asked the High Court for an interdict against the owner in question.
Two of the owner’s contentions in fighting the application are no doubt commonly raised by rule-breakers generally –
- “The HOA has waived compliance with its rules by not enforcing them”
The owner claimed that failures to strictly enforce the rules against other offenders amounted to the HOA waiving compliance with them. Not so, held the Court, the HOA’s duty was to enforce the rules for everyone’s benefit, plus it had no power to waive compliance. HOAs must however both check the exact wording of their constitutions and recognise the need to conscientiously enforce compliance with rules – both factors mentioned by the Court in reaching its decision.
- “The HOA is applying the rules in a discriminatory manner and shouldn’t be allowed to”
The owner’s argument here was that the HOA was discriminating against him and could not be permitted to do so. This being a contractual right, held the Court, any failure to enforce it against other owners would have no legal bearing on its right to enforce it against this owner. The Court did however warn that “An irrationally discriminatory system of enforcement might well in a given case justify a decision by the court in a matter like this to refuse to grant the interdictory relief in the exercise of its equitable discretion.” In other words, HOAs should be careful to avoid any form of “irrational” discrimination in enforcing rules.
The result – the owner is “prohibited from parking his vehicles, motor bikes, caravans, boats or trailers anywhere … other than in his garages or outside his house wholly within the boundary of his property.” He must also pay the HOA’s legal costs.
An end note on the CSOS dispute resolution service
The CSOS (Community Schemes Ombud Service) provides a dispute resolution service and can adjudicate a wide range of disputes in community schemes. In this particular case it had no jurisdiction to grant an order against the owner, but it should always be your first port of call if possible – take specific advice.
November 9, 2020
“Only in our dreams are we free. The rest of the time we need wages” (Terry Pratchett)
The flood of lockdown lay-offs and salary reductions has left many tenants struggling to find rent money, and their landlords wondering how to cover their bond repayments and other expenses.
Whether you are a landlord or a tenant (note that we are talking here only about residential leases) you need to be aware of the new Alert Level 1 Regulations applicable to evictions “for the duration of the national state of disaster”.
In a nutshell (this is of necessity only a brief summary of some highlights from the full regulations so take professional advice specific to your circumstances) –
- Evictions can take place but only with a court order.
- Courts have the power to suspend eviction orders until after the “lapse or termination of the national state of disaster”. Expect courts generally to lean towards suspending eviction orders; in other words landlords will in all probability have their work cut out for them.
- Landlords will in practice have to convince the court that it would be “not just or equitable” to suspend the order, taking into account a whole range of listed factors such as health considerations (public health as well as that of the parties), the tenant’s ability to immediately access another residence and basic services, the impact of the disaster on both parties (with the court balancing the prejudice to each of them from delaying eviction) and whether the landlord “has taken reasonable steps in good faith, to make alternative arrangements with all affected persons, including but not limited to payment arrangements that would preclude the need for any relocation during the national state of disaster”.
- The Rental Housing Tribunal has new powers to urgently restore occupation and/or services to tenants deprived of either by the landlord. This would be by way of an “ex parte spoliation order”, i.e. without the landlord having any right to be heard, although the landlord can ask for an urgent hearing on 24 hours’ notice.
- “Unfair practice” is presumed where –
- Services are terminated without reasonable notice, alternative payment arrangements have unreasonably not been made, or where “no provision has been made for the ongoing provision of basic services during the national state of disaster”’
- Any penalty for late payment of rental (where the default is caused by the disaster) has been levied (only interest can be charged),
- Either the landlord or the tenant have failed “to engage reasonably and in good faith to make arrangements to cater for the exigencies of the disaster”,
- “Any other conduct prejudicing the ongoing occupancy of a place of residence, prejudicing the health of any person or prejudicing the ability of any person to comply with the applicable restrictions on movement that is unreasonable or oppressive having regard to the prevailing circumstances.”
Notes for landlords and tenants
Keep a full record of everything in case your dispute ends up before the courts or the tribunal.
Both landlords and tenants will have to act fairly and reasonably towards each other here, taking into account your respective abilities to comply with the terms of the lease during the state of disaster.
Where tenants are struggling to pay rent as a result of the lockdown, landlords should be open (to whatever extent possible) to any reasonable request for rental deferments or reductions. Tenants in turn should be fair and reasonable in asking for relief. Good faith negotiation is key if landlords can expect to have any chance of obtaining an immediately-enforceable eviction order.
November 9, 2020
The sharp upsurge in businesses operating remotely as a result of the pandemic lockdowns means a lot more people working from home – most presumably in low-profile home offices, but inevitably some in the form of full-on business activities from home. What effect is that having on the property market?
Work-from-home and what’s hot in property market trends
Let’s firstly have a look at what trends are emerging in the “hot property” market, driven by both the work-from-home phenomenon and by the general economic fallout from the pandemic and the lockdowns –
- Increased interest in coastal and country properties from employees and businesses looking to work remotely away from congested highways and crowded cities.
- Upsizing by stay-at-home workers looking for extra home office space and facilities.
- Downsizing by financially-stretched homeowners reducing costs and looking to realise the value in large houses they no longer need (either by selling or by renting out).
- Increased demand for rental properties in some sectors, driven presumably by owners selling homes to cut costs, perhaps also by sales in anticipation of emigration or semi-gration.
The next question of course, regardless of whether you are selling, buying or staying put, is this – what does the law have to say about home businesses? As a small business are you clear to move your business into your house? As an employee is there anything in the law to stop you from setting up a home office? As a neighbour do you have any right to object?
Those are of course important questions to ask before you buy a “home-office-house” and before you open up a home business in your existing house. The last thing you want is to be shut down by unhappy neighbours or the local municipality.
The two questions to ask
The High Court has confirmed that there are essentially two questions to ask –
- Is the activity in question allowed by local zoning and land use laws?
- Is there any other legal block in place, for example are there any title deed restrictions or, if the residence is part of a community scheme like a Home Owners Association (HOA) or a Sectional Title complex, do the complex’s rules allow it?
Living in a complex – the hair salon allowed by zoning laws but closed down by the HOA
- A homeowner had for many years run a hair salon business from her home in a complex, although both the HOA’s constitution and its conduct rules allowed only residential usage of houses except with authorisation via a special resolution. She was bound by the constitution and rules both by the terms of her purchase agreement and by her title deeds.
- When she refused to cease business the HOA approached the High Court for an interdict. Her central argument was that her home business was permitted by the local zoning regulations in terms of which certain small scale non-residential activities were allowed in the area.
- Not relevant, held the Court in interdicting the homeowner from continuing her business. She had agreed to a limitation of her rights, she had agreed to forfeit her right to use their land for anything but residential purposes and the HOA had not purported to change the zoning scheme and was “well within its rights to seek to preserve the residential character of the development”.
In other words, HOA and Body Corporate rules can in principle be more restrictive than local zoning laws and effectively override them in such a case. Bear in mind that each case will be decided on its facts, and in addition there has been some speculation recently that the National State of Disaster regulations and orders could be used to justify a departure from that principle. Much safer however to assume that you are bound by your complex’s rules (which may in any event allow you to work from home and/or to run a small business, although perhaps only with consent).
Must you apply for rezoning or municipal consent? 3 categories to consider
If you don’t live in a residential complex or if you do but are in compliance with the complex’s rules, you need to check that you aren’t going to be stopped from operating (perhaps even fined) by your local authority.
Your local municipality will have its own land use and zoning regulations and bye-laws, but generally speaking your business activities will fall into one of three categories –
- Micro business: Depending on the zoning of your particular area, working alone from home in a home office is highly unlikely to cause any issues either legally or practically, and you are also likely to be allowed to conduct small scale business activities from home without consent where your business activities fall into your municipality’s “micro-business” or “home enterprise/undertaking” category (check with your local municipality on its rules in this regard).
- Municipal consent: As soon however as your activities go further (there are normally limits on things like the nature of the business, number of staff, percentage area of the house used for the business, parking availability, noise/nuisance factors and the like) you will probably have to apply for municipal consent or a permit to operate.
- Rezoning: In other cases you may need to go further and apply for complete rezoning of the property, possibly also for removal of title deed restrictions.
Take specific advice in any doubt!
September 21, 2020
“… in certain circumstances the principal may be liable to pay commission to both agents where it is impossible to distinguish between the efforts of one agent and another in terms of causality or degrees of causation.” (Extract from judgment below)
With many property sellers allowing multiple estate agencies to market their properties in their attempts to sell during what is still (for the moment at least) a buyer’s market, now is perhaps a good time to remind both sellers and buyers of the double commission danger.
Consider this scenario – you mandate an agent who introduces a potential buyer to your property, but no acceptable offer results. Later on you bring another agent in, and this time the same buyer makes an acceptable offer. Which agent must you pay commission to – the agent who originally introduced the buyer to the property, or the agent who eventually closed the deal?
In a nutshell, an agent must be the “effective cause” of the sale to be entitled to commission and our law reports are replete with disputes between sellers and agents over who is and who isn’t the effective cause of a particular sale. As the High Court put it a few years ago: “Our Courts have repeatedly acknowledged how difficult it is, when there are competing estate agents, to determine who the effective cause of the sale that eventuates is.”
The big danger for the seller of course is being held liable to pay full commission to two estate agents. The factual disputes that arose in the High Court case in question illustrate…
R1.6m commission claimed
- A property seller engaged agency A to sell the property, and later signed a sole and exclusive mandate with agency B to sell the property by auction.
- One (unsuccessful) auction later, and after much negotiation and to-ing and fro-ing, the first agency (A) presented an offer from buyer C which the seller accepted.
- Agency B claimed to have been the effective cause of the sale to C and sued the seller for R1.6m in auctioneer’s commission. The seller, at risk of paying (substantial) double commission, resisted vigorously.
- Most of the relevant facts were in dispute, with A and B presenting the Court with substantially different versions of events in virtually every important respect. B’s application was dismissed by the Court on the ground that because of the critical disputes of fact it should have proceeded by way of “action” not “application” – a technical distinction of great interest to the legal fraternity but not relevant here.
- What is highly relevant to sellers, buyers and agents is the ease with which the seller’s decision to engage the services of two agencies led to such bitter disputes of fact and law.
Sellers, Buyers and Agents: How to protect yourself
Sellers: As always, agree to nothing without legal advice, and insist on formal agency mandates. If you give mandates to multiple agencies, ask them each for a list of the prospective buyers they have introduced, and insist on the buyer indemnifying you against multiple commission claims (necessary because you might not know if your buyer has dealt with more than one agency). You may be advised in some cases to have the various agents give you a similar indemnity.
Buyers: Again, agree to nothing without advice! When viewing a property tell the agent if you have viewed it before with another agent and in particular if the offer/sale agreement you are asked to sign contains any warranties/indemnities, make sure it is safe to agree to them.
Agents: Don’t put your hard-earned commission at risk – avoid uncertainty and dispute with clear, properly-drawn mandates. Comply also with the EAAB’s Code of Conduct’s requirements on exposing a client to the risk of double commission.
September 21, 2020
“It is only where the enforcement of a contractual term would be so unfair, unreasonable or unjust so as to be contrary to public policy that a court may refuse to enforce it” (extract from first judgment below)
Leases often give tenants an option to extend or renew at the end of the current term, and tenants who lose sight of the value and importance of such an option are flirting with disaster.
In a nutshell, when the time comes to exercise your option do comply fully with the clause’s requirements. Make sure also that you understand and accept the exact wording of the renewal clause before you sign the lease. Drop the ball in either respect, and if your landlord wants you out for whatever reason, you will struggle to convince a court to come to your rescue by forcing an unwilling landlord to renew.
Four recent court cases – one in the Constitutional Court, two in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and one in the High Court) illustrate, but before we get there here’s a quick note for landlords…
This is of course also highly relevant to you – the last thing you want is for a poorly-worded clause to lumber you with an unwanted tenant, or an unrealistically low rental, or even just with a bitter and expensive legal fight over what the clause actually means. Nor, as we shall see below, do you want to run the risk of a court holding the terms of your lease to be so unfair as to be unenforceable.
First case: Non-compliance v unfairness, Ubuntu and public policy
- As part of a black empowerment initiative, a business hiring out tools and building equipment to builders had set up four of its ex-employees in a franchise operation. The business premises were let to them by the building owner, a trust linked to the hiring business.
- The leases were for 5 years and contained options to renew for a further 5 years, on the giving of notice six months before termination, and subject to the rental for the renewal period being agreed. A mechanism for the agreement of rental was set out in each lease. The franchise agreements were for 10 years, presumably indicating an anticipation of renewal.
- The tenants didn’t exercise their options on time, and when they did try to do so, it wasn’t in the terms required by the lease.
- When the landlord told two of the tenants to vacate (the others were offered a month to month temporary arrangement), they asked the High Court for an order allowing them to remain. They conceded that on the strict terms of the leases they would have no case but argued that on the basis of fairness and Ubuntu the leases should not be terminated.
- After winning in the High Court but losing on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the tenants took their appeal to the Constitutional Court, explaining “that they were unsophisticated and not versed in the niceties of the law.”
- The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that although Constitutional values such as Ubuntu (which encompasses values of fairness, reasonableness and justice), “form important considerations in the balancing exercise required to determine whether a contractual term, or its enforcement, is contrary to public policy … It is only where the enforcement of a contractual term would be so unfair, unreasonable or unjust so as to be contrary to public policy that a court may refuse to enforce it.”
- In other words, the highest court in the land has held that if you want to avoid the strict terms of the lease you must show that they are against public policy. You can use constitutional values to do that because those values “underlie and inform the substantive law of contract” but the acid test remains – have you proved that enforcement of the lease’s terms would be contrary to public policy? The tenants in this case had, said the Court, failed to do so. They have 30 days to leave.
Second case: Renewal clause void for vagueness
For ten years a tenant occupied premises in terms of an original lease and agreed renewals. When it gave notice of a further renewal, the parties were unable to agree on a rental, the renewal clause providing that … “the rental and costs shall be mutually agreed upon in writing between the Landlord and the Tenant when the right of renewal is exercised”.
The landlord applied for eviction and the SCA held that the term was unenforceable, being merely an agreement to agree rather than containing any “legally enforceable obligations”. The renewal clause was void for vagueness and the tenant was given 14 calendar days to vacate.
Third case: No agreement on rental, too late to call in a third party
A tenant gave notice of renewal, the lease in this case providing that “the rental consideration will be determined by agreement between the parties based on the prevailing market rental’s applicable to the property”, and if they could not agree, a third party would determine it.
The lease, held the SCA, had terminated because the tenant had only tried to invoke the third party clause after the lease had lapsed. The rental must be fixed or agreed for the renewal to be valid.
Fourth case: No notice of renewal and no deadlock breaking mechanism
The tenant in this case failed to give notice of renewal on time, his attempts to negotiate an extension with the landlord failed, and the High Court ordered his eviction. The tenant’s argument that over the years it had become “customary” for the landlord just to remind him about an upcoming expiry and ask him if he wanted to renew was, said the Court, irrelevant because the clause itself was not “definite and complete”.
The clause provided “that the parties agree in writing to the rental, conditions and provisions of the proposed lease” and even if the tenant had given proper notice of an intention to renew, the parties would still have had to negotiate terms, and there was no “deadlock breaking mechanism” in the lease.
September 21, 2020
“The purpose of the legislature in enacting s 34(1) is to protect creditors by preventing traders who are in financial difficulty from disposing of their business assets to third parties who are not liable for the debts of the business, without due advertisement to all the creditors of the business.” (Extract from judgement below)
With our economy in trouble and the ongoing pandemic and lockdown damaging more and more businesses by the day, sales by distressed companies and traders are likely to rocket.
If you are a prospective buyer here, be aware of one particular danger lurking in the wings for you.
Follow this rule to protect yourself – before you buy any business, its goodwill or assets forming part of the business, take legal advice as to whether or not the sale must first be advertised in terms of section 34 the Insolvency Act. You stand to lose both the business and the purchase price if section 34 requires the sale to be advertised and it isn’t.
Your risk is that if an unadvertised sale is challenged by a liquidator/trustee (or by a creditor if there is no liquidation/sequestration) within 6 months of the sale, it is likely to be declared void. In that event, you will be lucky to get even a portion of your purchase price back – with the seller in financial difficulty your concurrent claim is probably worthless.
As a creditor…
The advertising requirement is designed to protect you as a creditor from having to claim from a debtor which suddenly becomes a worthless shell having quietly sold away its business and/or assets beyond your reach.
Note that you only have protection if you have instituted proceedings against your debtor “for the purpose of enforcing [your] claim” before the transfer of the business – a good reason not to drag your heels when suing a recalcitrant debtor.
When advertisement isn’t necessary
The sale will only be valid without advertisement if –
- The sale was made “in the ordinary course of business” (unlikely where the business subsequently fails), or
- It was made for “securing the payment of a debt” (unlikely to be under your control as buyer), or
- The seller wasn’t a “trader”. As “trader” is widely defined in the Act, and as the onus of proof here is squarely on the buyer, that’s not going to be easily proved. As we shall see below, you can be a “trader” in property as much as in any other commodity.
As a general rule therefore, it is safest to insist on the sale being properly advertised before you pay out the purchase price, but there are grey areas and pitfalls here so take specific advice. Note also that the Act’s requirements for the timing and manner of advertisement are strict and must be followed to the letter.
As a recent High Court case shows, as a buyer (in this case of a property business) you could lose everything if you lose sight of this very real danger…
An R8m claim and a property transfer (and bond) set aside
- A property owner bought and developed a property firstly into a shopping centre and later into a shopping centre with 11 sectional title units.
- Whilst being sued by a creditor for R8m, the owner sold a section to a buyer and transferred it to him, and a bank registered a bond over the property.
- The creditor obtained judgement against the owner only to find that it had been placed into liquidation. It asked the High Court to set aside the sale on the basis that the sale had not been advertised in terms of section 34 and was therefore void.
- The buyer countered by denying that it was a “trader” as defined in the Insolvency Act. Its core business, it said, was to acquire and then rent out properties, “its business objective was not the buying and selling property per se as its stock in trade”.
- Finding on the facts that the owner was indeed a “trader” when it sold the property to the buyer, the Court set aside the sale, the transfer to the buyer, and the bank’s mortgage bond.
September 21, 2020
“O Wonder! …O Brave New World” (Shakespeare)
Regrettably the pandemic still shows no sign of going away any time soon, and the social distancing it has brought to our “new normal” leaves companies with a dilemma. How can you comply – safely and lawfully – with the Companies Act’s stringent requirements for the holding of Annual General Meetings and (where needed) interim General Meetings?
The good news is that our South African legislation has for many years allowed the holding of company meetings via electronic communication.
The savings in cost, efficiency and convenience have now – courtesy of the lockdown – been experienced first-hand by many a company and its stakeholders, and a Google search reveals a multitude of AGMs held recently via Zoom or similar platforms (there are also several proprietary platforms specializing in shareholder meetings).
The benefits of meeting virtually are such that even after Covid-19 is no more than a bad memory many of us will continue doing so in place of the traditional “face-to-face all in one place” gatherings.
Expect also an upsurge in hybrid physical/virtual meetings as things get safer.
The formal requirements
- Comply strictly with all the Companies Act’s requirements in regard to proper notice, conduct and minuting of meetings and decisions.
- Observe all the legal requirements set out in ECTA (the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act) in regard to identification of originator, accessibility, storage, retrieval etc.
- Shareholder meetings can be conducted entirely by electronic communication unless prohibited by your MOI (Memorandum of Incorporation) but if you want to avoid any uncertainty have your lawyer draw your MOI to clearly allow them.
- How you hold the virtual meeting is important, the requirement being that “The electronic communication employed ordinarily enables all persons participating in that meeting to communicate concurrently with each other without an intermediary, and to participate reasonably effectively in the meeting.”
- Notice of the meeting – over and above the normal requirements for notice, “the notice of that meeting must inform shareholders of the availability of that form of participation, and provide any necessary information to enable shareholders or their proxies to access the available medium or means of electronic communication”.
- It’s then over to shareholders (or their proxies) to arrange their own access at their own expense, although good practice might be to assist with technical and perhaps even financial support where necessary. Any suggestion of an infringement of shareholder rights could come back to haunt you.
Board decisions generally
Unless your MOI says otherwise, your board can make decisions electronically (without a virtual or physical meeting) if the decision is one “that could be voted on at a meeting of the board of that company”. Decisions can be “adopted by written consent of a majority of the directors” after “each director has received notice of the matter to be decided.”
Shareholder decisions generally
Shareholders can also vote electronically on resolutions relating to any business not required by the Companies Act or by the MOI to be conducted at an AGM
Meetings of public company shareholders “must be reasonably accessible within the Republic for electronic participation by shareholders … irrespective of whether the meeting is held in the Republic or elsewhere”.
Bodies Corporate and Home Owners Associations
Community schemes should take advice on whether in their particular circumstances they can/should postpone their AGMs and/or hold them remotely. Bodies Corporate will need to comply with their Rules and Home Owners Associations with their founding documents (either a Constitution or an MOI).
August 19, 2020
Dollar billionaire Andrew Carnegie said it a century ago, and it still rings true – wise property investment can be hard to beat when it comes to accumulating wealth. The exciting opportunity for buyers at the moment is of course the more attainable sale prices and the lower interest rates resulting from the pandemic and the lockdown. It is, by all accounts, still very much a buyer’s market.
On the other side of the coin, sellers and estate agents are no doubt heartened by recent signs that the first green shoots of a recovery are in the offing, and so the time is ripe for a reminder that, in terms of the Estate Agency Affairs Act (“the Act”) only agents with a valid and current Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC) can operate and earn commission.
The challenge for agents is that when it comes to the issue of FFCs, they are at the mercy of the Estate Agency Affairs Board (EAAB), which has reportedly struggled in the past to issue certificates efficiently and on time. This problem will presumably be exacerbated by the ongoing lockdown restrictions and the risk of precautionary office evacuations.
However there is some good news for agents (not such good news perhaps for those sellers or landlords hoping to save on commission!) in a recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment…
No FFC, but not the agent’s fault
- Two estate agencies (“S” and “A”) jointly brokered a lease agreement, but when S asked for its 50% share A refused, partially on the basis that S had no valid FFC at the time the commission was earned.
- In fact S had done everything necessary to apply for its annual FFC, which was issued by the EAAB on 1 January 2018 in the wrong name (S had converted from a close corporation to a company). The EAAB acknowledged its error and in May 2018 issued a correct FFC to S, backdated to 1 January.
- However the High Court dismissed S’s commission claim, holding that mere entitlement to an FFC is not enough – a valid FFC must have been actually issued at the time the commission was earned.
- S appealed to the SCA, which reversed that finding and awarded S its 50%. The Court held that the Act’s strict and peremptory requirement for a FFC had to be interpreted in light of both Constitutional considerations and consistency “with what the Act seeks to achieve”.
- On that basis, and commenting that “But for the error on the part of the Board, [S] was entitled to, and would have been issued with, a valid fidelity fund certificate for the period 1 January-31 December 2018” and that “the fault lies squarely and solely with the Board”, the Court concluded that “the estate agents were rightly considered to have been in possession of a certificate”. S is therefore entitled to its commission.
Agents – don’t lose your commission!
The Court was however at pains to point out that the particular facts of this case were “in a narrow compass” and it is clear that the general rule remains – hold a valid and current FFC or almost certainly forfeit your commission. Do not even try to rely on an EAAB mistake unless you have complied strictly with all the formalities for a certificate and can prove that you are entitled to one.
And as the Court put it, if something does go wrong with the issue of your FFC “…estate agents should not adopt a supine attitude in the face of the Board’s errors. They should do what is reasonably within their power to have the situation rectified. In the meantime their compliance with the requirements should be a primary factor in the determination of disputes that arise before the error is rectified” (emphasis supplied).