Browsed by
Month: November 2015

MHI SUPPORTS MOVEMBER

MHI SUPPORTS MOVEMBER

 

A4_B

 

 

 

 

Movember is the month formerly known as November, where men and women across the globe join together to raise awareness for men’s health, specifically prostate cancer, testicular cancer and men’s mental health.

Jurgens Tubb

 

 

 

 

Jurgens Tubb het sy verjaarsdag gevier en is bederf deur sy dames. Baie geluk!

Laasmaand hetons begin met veranderings aan ons Ontvangs- en Konsultasieareas. Alles vorder goed en ons is baie opgewonde om eersdaags die voltooide produk aan ons kliënte te wys. Dankie vir almal se geduld met die ongerief.

Kerspakkies

 

 

 

 

Ons Kerspakkies vir MES se kliënte het ook alreeds begin arriveer. Baie dankie aan almal wat ons help om hierdie projek te ondersteun. Die sluitingsdatum vir die pakkies is 4 Desember 2015.

CO-OWNERSHIP OF LAND

CO-OWNERSHIP OF LAND

A2_BThe word “co-ownership” in relation to land means that two or more persons own land simultaneously in undivided shares. A share in land does not represent, and may not be held to represent a defined portion of land. A co-owner who holds a share in land does not hold title to a defined piece of land even if by arrangement with his co-owners they might have agreed to give him occupation of a specific portion of land. The title he has is to an undivided share only, in the whole of the land, held in joint ownership. The portion he occupies is owned jointly by him and his co-owners in the whole thereof. If he should build a house on the portion he occupies, the house will be owned jointly.

When X, Y and Z are co-owners of a farm, they are not each entitled to a physical part of the farm but each of them has an undivided share in the whole of the farm. The shares will not always be equal. One person can have half a share while the other two can each have a twenty five percent share. However, co-ownership unfortunately often leads to disputes among the owners.

Co-operation between the co-owners

It is advisable that co-owners enter into an agreement which regulates the relationship between them. Unfortunately this agreement will have no bearing against third parties. The consent of all the co-owners is required when administrative decisions have to be made. No owner is entitled to change or improve the property without the consent of the other owners. All the owners have to agree to the use of the property, e.g. they have to agree to the chopping down of trees, the erection of a storage facility/building, or to let cattle graze in the field. If co-owners are not consulted they may request an interdict from the court. The court may even order that buildings that have been erected, be removed. However, in instances where the aim is to preserve the property, it is not always necessary to obtain the consent of the co-owners.

The profits and losses

All the co-owners must contribute proportionally to necessary and also useful expenses for the preservation of the property. Such expenses include taxes and expenses to maintain the property in good condition, but do not include luxury expenses. Losses and charges must be shared by the co-owners, except those attributable to negligence of one of the owners. As with expenses, fruits and profits must be divided amongst the co-owners according to each owner’s shareholding.

Alienation of a share

A co-owner may alienate his share or even bequeath it to his heirs, without the consent of the other owners, even against their will. A co-owner’s share may also be attached by the sheriff.

Use of the property

Each co-owner may use the property in accordance with his undivided share. He must, however, use it with due regard to the rights of the other co-owners. Each co-owner, his employees and guests are entitled to free entry to any part of the property, except if the co-owners have agreed that a portion of the property is reserved for the exclusive use of one co-owner.

Partition

Co-owners may decide to partition the property, usually if they cannot agree on the utilisation of the property. The property will then be divided physically in accordance with the value of the property and each owner’s share in it. When this is uneconomic, which is usually the case with a farm, the property can be awarded to one co-owner, but he must then compensate the other co-owners. The court may also order that the property be sold by public auction and the proceeds divided amongst the co-owners. There is strict statutory control over the subdivision of land and also the actual physical division and use of land, so that partition may not always be possible.

Co-ownership is an excellent vehicle to becoming an owner of a property that one otherwise might not be able to afford. However, be aware of the pitfalls, choose your co-owners wisely, and draw up an agreement to regulate payment of the bond and rates, the day-to-day expenses and house rules.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

MEDE-EIENAARSKAP VAN GROND

MEDE-EIENAARSKAP VAN GROND

A2_BDie woord “mede-eienaarskap” met betrekking tot grond beteken dat twee of meer persone ‘n stuk grond gelyktydig in onverdeelde aandele besit. ‘n Aandeel in die grond beteken nie dat ‘n bepaalde gedeelte van die grond besit word nie. ‘n Mede-eienaar wat ‘n aandeel in grond hou, kan nie aanspraak maak op ‘n bepaalde stuk grond nie, selfs al het sy mede-eienaars by wyse van ‘n ooreenkoms ingestem om okkupasie of gebruik van ‘n bepaalde stuk grond aan hom te gee. Die reg wat hy het, is op ‘n onverdeelde aandeel in die geheel van die grond wat in gesamentlike eienaarskap gehou word. Die gedeelte wat hy okkupeer, word gesamentlik besit deur hom en sy mede-eienaars in die grond. Indien hy ‘n huis bou op die gedeelte wat hy okkupeer, sal die huis gesamentlik besit word deur al die eienaars.

Wanneer X, Y en Z mede-eienaars van ‘n plaas is, is hulle nie geregtig op ‘n fisiese deel van die plaas nie, maar elkeen van hulle het ‘n onverdeelde aandeel in die geheel van die plaas. Die aandeelhouding sal nie noodwendig altyd gelyk wees nie. Een persoon kan ‘n halwe aandeelhouding besit, terwyl die ander twee eienaars elk ‘n vyf en twintig persent aandeel kan hou. Mede-eienaarskap kan ongelukkig soms tot geskille tussen die eienaars lei.

Samewerking tussen die mede-eienaars

Dit is raadsaam dat die mede-eienaars ‘n ooreenkoms aangaan wat die verhouding tussen hulle reguleer. Ongelukkig is hierdie ooreenkoms nie afdwingbaar teenoor derde partye nie. Die toestemming van al die mede-eienaars word vereis wanneer administratiewe besluite geneem moet word. Geen eienaar is geregtig om veranderings of verbeterings op die eiendom aan te bring sonder die toestemming van die ander eienaars nie. Al die eienaars moet saamstem oor die gebruik van die eiendom, byvoorbeeld indien hulle bome wil afkap, ’n stoorfasiliteit of -gebou wil oprig of beeste in die veld wil laat wei. As mede-eienaars nie in besluite geraadpleeg word nie kan hulle die hof nader om ‘n interdik toe te staan. Die hof kan selfs gelas dat geboue wat opgerig is, verwyder word. In gevalle waar die doel is om die eiendom te bewaar, is dit egter nie altyd nodig om die toestemming van die mede-eienaars te verkry nie.

Die winste en verliese

Al die mede-eienaars moet proporsioneel bydra tot noodsaaklike en ook nuttige uitgawes vir die bewaring van die eiendom. Dié uitgawes sluit in belasting en uitgawes om die eiendom in ‘n goeie toestand te hou, maar sluit nie luukse uitgawes in nie. Verliese en koste moet deur die mede-eienaars gedeel word, behalwe waar dit toegeskryf kan word aan nalatigheid van een van die eienaars. Soos met uitgawes, moet vrugte en winste verdeel word onder die mede-eienaars volgens elke eienaar se aandeelhouding.

Vervreemding van ‘n aandeel

‘n Mede-eienaar kan sy aandeel vervreem of selfs aan sy erfgename bemaak, sonder die toestemming van die ander eienaars, selfs teen hulle wil. Die balju kan ook beslag lê op ‘n mede-eienaar se aandeel.

Gebruik van die eiendom

Elke mede-eienaar kan die eiendom gebruik in ooreenstemming met sy onverdeelde aandeel. Hy moet dit egter gebruik met inagneming van die regte van die ander mede-eienaars. Elke mede-eienaar, sy werknemers en gaste, is geregtig op vrye toegang tot enige deel van die eiendom, behalwe as die mede-eienaars ooreengekom het dat ‘n gedeelte van die eiendom vir die uitsluitlike gebruik van ‘n mede-eienaar gereserveer word.

Fisiese verdeling

Mede-eienaars kan besluit om die eiendom te verdeel, wat gewoonlik gebeur as hulle nie oor die benutting van die eiendom kan saamstem nie. Die eiendom sal dan fisies verdeel word in ooreenstemming met die waarde van die eiendom en elke mede-eienaar se aandeel daarin. Wanneer dit egter nie ekonomies is nie, wat gewoonlik die geval is met ‘n plaas, kan die eiendom toegeken word aan ‘n mede-eienaar, maar hy moet dan die ander mede-eienaars vergoed. Die hof kan ook beveel dat die eiendom op ‘n openbare veiling verkoop word en die opbrengs onder die mede-eienaars verdeel word. Daar is streng statutêre beheer oor die onderverdeling van grond en die gebruik daarvan, wat die onderverdeling nie altyd moontlik maak nie.

Mede-eienaarskap is een van die maniere hoe mens eienaar kan word van ‘n eiendom wat andersins nie bekostig kan word nie. Wees egter bewus van die slaggate, kies jou mede-eienaars oordeelkundig en stel ‘n ooreenkoms op om die onderlinge verhouding tussen die partye te reël ten opsigte van onder andere die betaling van die verband en erfbelasting, die dag-tot-dag uitgawes, asook die huisreëls.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies. (E&OE)

STANDAARD SKULDERKENNINGS EN DIE NASIONALE KREDIETWET (NKW)

STANDAARD SKULDERKENNINGS EN DIE NASIONALE KREDIETWET (NKW)

A1_BDie nuwe NKW reguleer nie net afbetalingsverkoopsooreenkomste en huurooreenkomste ten opsigte van roerende goed soos die Wet op Kredietooreenkomste 75 van 1980 gedoen het nie. Die NKW is ook van toepassing op ‘n groter verskeidenheid kredietooreenkomste en het geen monetêre perk nie. In plaas daarvan om regstappe te neem, laat ‘n skuldeiser soms ‘n skuldenaar ‘n skulderkenning onderteken om terugbetaling te fasiliteer. Hierdie dokument kan voorsiening maak vir paaiemente, rente en fooie. Die vraag is egter of so ‘n ooreenkoms ter bevestiging van ‘n bestaande verpligting, ‘n kredietooreenkoms daarstel vir doeleindes van die NKW.

Die doel van hierdie Wet is om die sosiale en ekonomiese welstand van Suid- Afrikaners te bevorder, om ‘n billike, deursigtige, kompeterende, volhoubare, verantwoordelike, effektiewe en toeganklike kredietindustrie te bevorder, en om verbruikers te beskerm.

“Krediet” word in die Wet gedefinieer as die uitstel van betaling van geld verskuldig deur een persoon aan ‘n ander of die belofte om te betaal; of ‘n belofte om geld voor te skiet aan of ten behoewe van ‘n ander persoon.

“Ooreenkoms” sluit in ‘n reëling of verstandhouding tussen twee of meer partye wat bedoel is om ‘n regsverhouding tussen die partye te skep.

Daar word na die partye by ‘n kredietooreenkoms, gereguleer deur die NKW, verwys as die “verbruiker” en die “kredietverskaffer” en hierdie definisies behoort in oënskou geneem te word. ‘n Skulderkenning verwys normaalweg na ‘n historiese gebeurtenis en vestig nie ‘n kredietwaarborg of enige van die benoemde krediettransaksies soos ‘n pandooreenkoms, verdiskonteringsooreenkoms, insidentele kredietooreenkoms, paaiementooreenkoms, huur, gesekureerde lening- of verbandooreenkoms, of kredietfasiliteit nie. Nietemin, die feit dat die skulderkenning uitgestelde betaling vooronderstel en vereis dat rente, fooie en ander kostes betaalbaar is, veroorsaak dat dit binne die trefwydte van die omvattende term “krediettransaksie”, soos voorsien in artikel 8(4)(f) van die Wet, val.

Artikel 2(1) bepaal dat die Wet geïnterpreteer moet word op ‘n wyse wat uitvoering gee aan die doel soos in Artikel 3 uiteengesit. Die vraag is dus eintlik of die wetgewer bedoel het dat die wysiging van die terugbetalingsvoorwaardes met betrekking tot bestaande skuld, byvoorbeeld waar geld reeds geruime tyd vroeër voorgeskiet is of waar skade gelei is as gevolg van delik of kontrakbreuk, ‘n kredietooreenkoms daarstel vir die doeleindes van die NKW. Gesien die elemente van uitgestelde betaling en die heffing van rente, fooie en ander kostes wat in ‘n standaardskulderkenning voorkom en in die afwesigheid van ‘n spesifieke of geïmpliseerde aanduiding tot die teendeel, lyk dit of die noodwendige gevolgtrekking moet wees dat die ooreenkoms gedefinieer kan word as ‘n kredietooreenkoms soos deur die NKW bedoel. Die relevansie hiervan is dat die kredietverskaffer dalk sal moet registreer by die Nasionale Kredietreguleerder, dat bekostigbaarheidstudies gedoen sal moet word, dat die verbruiker te diep in die skuld kan raak en vir skuldberading aansoek doen, en dat baie ander veeleisende vereistes van toepassing sal wees.

Daar word betoog dat waar die skuldoorsaak of aksie ten opsigte waarvan die skulderkenning gedoen is, op ‘n kontrak of ooreenkoms berus wat ‘n kredietooreenkoms daarstel, die invoeging van ‘n geen-novasieklousule in die skulderkenning nie die ooreenkoms wat vervolgens aangegaan is, buite die trefwydte van die NKW sal laat val nie. Nietemin, waar die skuld aanvanklik ontstaan het as gevolg van ‘n delik, sal die invoeging van ‘n geen-novasieklousule moontlik tot gevolg hê dat die oorspronklike skuldoorsaak, naamlik die delik, behoue bly en dus meebring dat die saak buite die trefwydte van die NKW val.

Iets wat in gedagte gehou moet word, is dat “verbruiker” vir doeleindes van ‘n krediet-ooreenkoms waarop die NKW van toepassing is, beteken:

(a) Die party aan wie goedere of dienste verkoop word kragtens ‘n afslagooreenkoms, insidentele kredietooreenkoms of afbetalingsooreenkoms;
(b) Die party aan wie geld betaal word, of krediet verskaf word, onder ‘n pandooreenkoms;
(c) Die party aan wie krediet verskaf word kragtens ‘n kredietfasiliteit;
(d) Die verbandhouer kragtens ‘n verbandooreenkoms;
(e) Die lener onder ‘n gesekureerde lening;
(f) Die huurder kragtens ‘n huurkontrak;
(g) Die borg kragtens ‘n kredietborgstelling; of
(h) Die party aan wie of in wie se opdrag geld voorgeskiet word of krediet toegestaan word kragtens enige ander kredietooreenkoms.

Die definisie mag die antwoord verskaf aangesien die skulderkenning, as ‘n verskillende skuldoorsaak, dalk kan meebring dat die verbruiker nie volgens die definisie hierbo kwalifiseer nie. So ook is die onderliggende skuldoorsaak tot die skulderkenning en dit spreek vanself dat die ondertekening van ‘n skulderkenning nie iets is wat ligtelik benader moet word nie.

Waar ‘n hof oortuig is dat ‘n skulderkenning onderhewig is aan die NKW, mag van die hof vereis word om ‘n bevinding te maak in terme van artikel 130(4)(b) van die NKW, wat bepaal dat:

In enige verrigtinge gekontempleer in hierdie artikel, indien die hof bevind dat – … die kredietverskaffer nie voldoen het aan die relevante bepalings van hierdie Wet, soos gekontempleer in subartikel (3)(a), of die hof genader het onder omstandighede soos gekontempleer in subartikel (3)(c) dan moet die hof – die saak uitstel; en ‘n bevel maak wat stappe uiteensit wat die kredietverskaffer moet voltooi voordat die saak voortgesit kan word.

In Adams v SA Motor Industry Employers Association 1981 (3) SA 1189 (A) at 1198 – 1199, het die hof bevind dat daar ‘n vermoede teen novasie bestaan en dat, waar novasie nie die bedoeling was nie, dit moontlik was vir twee verpligtinge om gelyktydig te bestaan. Hierdie verpligtinge sal interafhanklik wees en die skuldeiser het nie die vrye keuse om die aanvanklike verpligting af te dwing nie. ‘n Skulderkenning, soms na verwys as ‘n IOU, is bewys dat ‘n skuld verskuldig is, maar verskil van ‘n skuldbewys aangesien dit nie ‘n uitdruklike belofte is om te betaal nie. Waar die skulderkenning egter gekoppel is aan ‘n onderneming om te betaal, sal dit ‘n verpligting skep kragtens daardie onderneming.

Die saak van Rodel Financial Service (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo and Another 2013 (3) Sa 151 (Kzp) en annotasies is voorgestelde leeswerk om die toepaslike beginsels beter te verstaan.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies. (E&OE)

STANDARD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF DEBT AND THE NATIONAL CREDIT ACT (NCA)

STANDARD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF DEBT AND THE NATIONAL CREDIT ACT (NCA)

A1_BThe new NCA does not only regulate instalment sale agreements and lease agreements in respect of movables as was done by its predecessor, the repealed Credit Agreements Act 75 of 1980. The NCA also applies to a much wider variety of credit agreements and has no monetary cap. Instead of instituting legal action a creditor often gets a debtor to sign an acknowledgement of debt to facilitate repayment. This document could contain a provision for instalments and interest and fees. The question arises whether this agreement in confirmation of an existing obligation constitutes a credit agreement for purposes of the NCA.

The purpose of this Act is to promote and advance the social and economic welfare of South Africans, promote a fair, transparent, competitive, sustainable, responsible, efficient, effective and accessible credit market and industry, and to protect consumers.

“Credit”, when used as a noun, is defined in the Act as a deferral of payment of money owed to a person or a promise to defer such payment; or a promise to advance or pay money to or at the direction of another person.

“Agreement” includes an arrangement or understanding between or among two or more parties which purports to establish a relationship in law between those parties.

The parties to a credit agreement governed by the NCA are referred to as the “consumer” and the “credit provider” and these definitions should be considered. An acknowledgement of debt normally refers to a historical event of cause and does not constitute a credit guarantee or any of the named credit transactions such as a pawn agreement, discount agreement, incidental credit agreement, instalment agreement, lease, secured loan or mortgage agreement or credit facility. However, the fact that it contains a deferral of payment and requires the payment of interest, fees and other charges, will cause it to fall within the ambit of the catch-all term “credit transaction” provided for in Section 8(4)(f) of the Act.

Section 2(1) provides that the Act must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the purposes set out in Section 3. The question really is whether the legislature intended the rearrangement or the repayment terms of an existing debt, for instance where money has already been advanced to a consumer a considerable period of time ago or where damages were suffered as a result of a delict or breach of contract, to constitute a credit agreement or transaction for purposes of the NCA. Due to the elements of deferral and the charging of interest, fees and other charges in a standard acknowledgement of debt, and in the absence of any express or implicit indication to the contrary, it seems an inescapable conclusion that the agreement could be defined as a credit agreement within the meaning of the NCA. The relevance of this is that it might be that the credit provider would be required to register as such with the National Credit Regulator, affordability assessment would have to be done prior to conclusion, the consumer could become overindebted and apply for debt review, and so many onerous requirements will be applicable.

It is submitted that where the cause of action in relation to which the acknowledgement of debt was entered into is based on a contract or agreement which constitutes a credit agreement, the insertion of a no-novation clause into an acknowledgement of debt will not serve to exclude the agreement subsequently concluded, from the ambit of the NCA. However, where the debt initially arose as a result of a delict, the insertion of a no-novation clause might have the effect of preserving the original cause of action, namely the delict, and thus cause the matter to fall outside the scope of the NCA.

One thing to be kept in mind is that a “consumer”, in respect of a credit agreement to which the NCA applies, means

(a) the party to whom goods or services are sold under a discount transaction, incidental credit agreement or instalment agreement;
(b) the party to whom money is paid, or credit granted, under a pawn transaction;
(c) the party to whom credit is granted under a credit facility;
(d) the mortgagor under a mortgage agreement;
(e) the borrower under a secured loan;
(f) the lessee under a lease;
(g) the guarantor under a credit guarantee; or
(h) the party to whom or at whose direction money is advanced or credit granted under any other credit agreement.

This definition might provide the answer as the acknowledgement of debt might, as a different cause of action, not qualify the consumer under the above definition. So, too, is the underlying cause of action to the acknowledgement of debt, and it deserves no debate that signing an acknowledgement of debt is not something to go about without due consideration.

Should a court be convinced that the written acknowledgement of debt is subject to the NCA the court could be required to make a ruling in terms of Section 130(4)(b) of the NCA, which states:

In any proceedings contemplated in this section, if the court determines that – … the credit provider has not complied with the relevant provisions of this Act, as contemplated in subsection (3)(a), or has approached the court in circumstances contemplated in subsection (3)(c) the court must – adjourn the matter before it; and make an appropriate order setting out the steps the credit provider must complete before the matter may be resumed.

In Adams v SA Motor Industry Employers Association 1981 (3) SA 1189 (A) at 1198 – 1199, the court held that there is a presumption against novation and that, where novation was not intended, it was possible for two obligations to co-exist. These obligations would be interdependent, and the creditor does not have a free election to enforce the original obligation. An acknowledgment of debt, sometimes referred to as an IOU, is evidence of a debt which is due, but differs from a promissory note as it does not contain an express promise to pay. However, where the acknowledgment of debt is coupled with an undertaking to pay, it will give rise to an obligation in terms of that undertaking.

The case of Rodel Financial Service (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo and Another 2013 (3) Sa 151 (Kzp), and its annotations is recommended for reading and getting a better understanding of the applicable principles.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

KLOP JOU FINANSIES VIR DIE AANKOOP VAN ‘N EIENDOM?

KLOP JOU FINANSIES VIR DIE AANKOOP VAN ‘N EIENDOM?

A3_B

Die kostes verbonde aan die aankoop van ‘n nuwe eiendom behels meer as bloot die voorgeskrewe prokureurskoste vir die registrasie van die transport.   Voornemende Kopers moet doodseker maak hulle word volledig ingelig oor enige verskuilde en voorafbetaalde kostes verbonde aan sodanige aankoop.  Hulle moet ook deeglik kennis neem op welke tydstip enige deposito’s en balans kooppryse betaalbaar is om seker te maak dat daar aan die bepalings van die koopooreenkoms voldoen word.

By die aankoop van ‘n eiendom is die volgende kostes onder normale omstandighede deur die Koper betaalbaar:

  1. Die betaling van ‘n deposito binne die periode soos voorgeskryf in die koopooreenkoms.

Kopers moet kennis neem dat die betaling van ‘n deposito (gewoonlik binne die eerste 7 dae vanaf datum van ondertekening van die koopkontrak) meestal deur die Verkoper vereis word om die Koper se bereidwilligheid om die eiendom in goeder trou aan te koop, aan te dui.  Die doel van die deposito is dus juis ‘n voorafbetaling van die bedrag kort na ondertekening van die kontrak.  As die kontrak stipuleer dat ‘n deposito betaalbaar is by die verkoop van die Kopers se bestaande eiendom, sal dit streng gesproke nie neerkom op die betaling van ‘n deposito nie aangesien laasgenoemde betaling onderhewig is aan ‘n opskortende voorwaarde en nie as bewys van die Koper se goeder trou sou dien nie.

  1. Prokureurskostes, gelykstaande aan ‘n voorgeskrewe tarieffooi betaalbaar aan die oordragsprokureurs wat toesien tot die registrasie van die eiendom in die naam van die Koper.

Gemelde tarieffooi, sowel as die bedrag hereregte betaalbaar aan SARS, word bereken op die waarde van die koopprys van die eiendom. Normaalweg word die hereregte betaalbaar aan SARS ook ingesluit in die rekening van die oordragsprokureurs wat aan die Koper oorhandig word.

Die bedrag hereregte betaalbaar aan SARS by die aankoop van ‘n eiendom word jaarliks hersien en word volgens ‘n glyskaal bereken.  So byvoorbeeld is alle eiendomme wat aangekoop word teen ‘n koopprys van R750 000 of minder, vrygestel van die betaling van hereregte.   Indien die koopprys van die eiendom R750 001 of meer is, sal hereregte aan SARS betaalbaar wees voordat registrasie van die eiendom kan plaasvind. (U eiendomsagent en/of transportprokureur sal in staat wees om u van die presiese hereregte bedrag  sowel as die prokureurskostes betaalbaar op u transaksie, te voorsien).

Dis belangrik om daarop te let dat die hereregte kort na ondertekening van die kontrak reeds betaalbaar is ten einde ‘n hereregtekwitansie vanaf SARS te bekom.  Indiening en registrasie van die transport in die Aktekantoor is nie moontlik alvorens die volle bedrag hereregte nie aan SARS oorbetaal is, en SARS ‘n hereregtekwitansie daarvoor uitgereik het nie.

Baie kopers verkeer dikwels onder ‘n wanindruk dat hereregte eers teen registrasie van die transport betaal kan word, wat nie die geval is nie.   Kopers is ook dikwels onder die indruk dat prokureurskostes (betaalbaar aan die oordragprokureur as ‘n fooi vir die registrasie van die transport) dieselfde kostes is as hereregte (wat aan SARS betaalbaar is). Dus dink Kopers dikwels verkeerdelik dat geen prokureurskostes betaalbaar is aan die oordragprokureurs indien daar nie hereregte aan SARS betaalbaar is nie (weens die feit dat die koopprys van die eiendom R750 000 of minder is).  Dit is egter nie die geval nie, en is die voorgeskrewe tarieffooi steeds betaalbaar aan die oordragprokureur vir die registrasie van die transport.

  1. Die koste verbonde aan die uitreik van ‘n heffingsertifikaat.

Dikwels vorm ‘n eiendom wat aangekoop word deel van ‘n huiseienaarsvereniging, en sal die Koper na registrasie verantwoordelik wees vir die betaling van heffings aan die huiseienaarsvereniging, wat bepaalde funksies tot voordeel van die eienaar verrig.

Indien die Koper ‘n deeltiteleenheid aankoop, is heffings outomaties ook betaalbaar aan die regspersoon van die skema.  By die registrasie van ‘n transport moet ‘n huiseienaarsvereniging of die regspersoon van die deeltitelskema ‘n heffingsertifikaat uitreik wat bevestig dat die bestaande geregistreerde eienaar op datum is met die betaling van alle heffings.  Die koste verbonde aan die uitreik van sodanige heffingsertifikaat kan onder normale omstandighede wissel tussen R500 en R1 500, en is gewoonlik deur die Koper betaalbaar. 

  1. Okkupasiehuur, indien die Koper sou besluit om voor registrasie van die eiendom reeds okkupasie daarvan te neem.

Dit is belangrik dat die Koper kennis neem van die bepalings van die koopooreenkoms, wat sal stipuleer of die Koper na okkupasie slegs okkupasiehuur aan die Verkoper moet betaal vir die gebruik van die eiendom voor registrasie, en of die Koper ook vir ander uitgawes van toepassing op die eiendom (soos byvoorbeeld munisipale belastings, heffings, water en elektrisiteit), verantwoordelik sal wees.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies. (E&OE)

FINANCES WHEN PURCHASING A PROPERTY

FINANCES WHEN PURCHASING A PROPERTY

A3_B

The costs associated with the purchase of a new property are more than just the prescribed conveyancing fees for the registration of the transfer. Prospective buyers must make absolutely sure they are fully informed of any hidden and advance costs when purchasing a property. They should also take note at which point during the transfer process they are liable to pay any deposits as well as the balance of the purchase price to ensure that they fully comply with the provisions of the purchase agreement.

When buying a property the Purchaser is normally responsible for payment of the following costs:

 1.    The payment of a deposit within the period specified in the purchase agreement. 

Buyers should note that the payment of a deposit (usually within the first seven days after signature of the agreement) is often required by the seller to confirm the buyer’s willingness to purchase the property in good faith.  The purpose of the deposit is an advance payment of the amount shortly after signing said agreement. If the contract stipulates that a deposit is payable upon the sale of the buyers’ existing property , it will strictly speaking not constitute the payment of a deposit as the latter payment is subject to a condition precedent, and does not serve as evidence of the buyer’s good faith to proceed with the property purchase.

  1. Conveyancing fees, equal to a prescribed tariff fee payable to the conveyancers who oversee the registration of the property into the name of the Purchaser.

Said tariff fee, as well as any transfer duty amount payable to SARS, is calculated on the value of the purchase price of the property. Normally the transfer duty payable to SARS is also included in the statement of account of the conveyancers provided to the buyer during the course of the transfer.

The amount of transfer duty payable when purchasing a property is reviewed annually and calculated according to a sliding scale. For example, all properties purchased at a purchase price of R 750 000 or less, are exempt from the payment of transfer duty. If the purchase price of the property is R750 001 or more, the payment of transfer duty to SARS are compulsory before registration of the property can take place. (your estate agent and/or conveyancer will be able to inform you of the exact amount of transfer duty and conveyancing fees payable on your transaction).

It is important to note that the transfer duty amount is normally payable shortly after signature of the deed of sale in order to obtain a transfer duty receipt from SARS.  Lodgement and registration of the transfer in the Deeds Office is not possible unless the full amount of transfer duty was duly paid to SARS, and a transfer duty receipt has been issued for it.

Sometimes buyers are under a misconception that the payment of transfer duty are only due upon registration of the transfer, which is not the case. Buyers also often confuse the conveyancing fees (payable to the transferring attorney as a fee for attending to the registration of transfer of the property) with the transfer duty (payable to SARS). Accordingly buyers often mistakenly assume that no conveyancing fees are payable to the conveyancers if there is no transfer duty payable to SARS  (due to the fact that the purchase price of the property is R750 000 or less). However, this is not the case, and the prescribed tariff fee remains payable to the conveyancers for attending to the registration of transfer.

  1. The costs for the issuing of a levy clearance certificate.

Often the property purchased forms part of a homeowner’s association.  After registration of the property, the buyer will be responsible for the payment of levies to the homeowner’s association of which it became a member upon transfer.

If the Purchaser bought a sectional title unit, levies will automatically become payable to the body corporate of the scheme subsequent to transfer.  Upon the registration of a property the homeowner’s association or body corporate of the sectional title scheme must issue a levy clearance certificate confirming that the current registered owner of the property is up to date with the payment of all levies in respect of said property.  The cost of issuing such levy clearance certificate under normal circumstances may vary between R500 and R1 500, and is usually payable by the Purchaser.

  1. Occupational rent, if the buyer decides to take occupation of the property prior to registration thereof in its name.

It is important that the buyer take notice of the provisions of the purchase agreement, which will stipulate whether the buyer will only be liable for the payment of occupational rent to the Seller once it occupies the property, or whether the buyer will also be responsible for the payment of other expenses applicable to the property (such as rates, levies, water and electricity).

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

CAN I MAKE A CASE OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE IF I HAVE SETTLED?

CAN I MAKE A CASE OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE IF I HAVE SETTLED?

A1_BIn this article we will discuss whether, in the face of an agreement between an employer and an employee in terms of which an employee accepts a demotion to a lower position, the employee is nevertheless entitled to refer an unfair labour practice dispute concerning this demotion to the CCMA.

The facts in Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others[1] can be summarised as follows: The employee worked as an Administrative Manager at Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd. She was informed by doctors that she was very ill and would most likely have to go to hospital frequently and take various types of medication. Over the next three years her absenteeism increased significantly and her employers became concerned as she was no longer able to do her job effectively, even when she was not absent, due to the side effects of her medication. Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd, after having discussions with the employee, suspended her pending an investigation into her capacity to undertake the functions of an Administrative Manager, taking into account her health and performance. Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd held an incapacity hearing and the external Chairperson ruled that, due to the employee’s excessive and increasing absenteeism, dismissal was the appropriate sanction. The Chairperson, however, offered her a demotion instead of a dismissal. The employee accepted this demotion in writing.

After this agreement between Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd and the employee was concluded, she obtained legal assistance and subsequently complained to the CCMA that Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd had committed an unfair labour practice by demoting her.

The question here is whether, in the face of an agreement between Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd in terms of which the employee accepted demotion to a lower position, she was nevertheless entitled to refer an unfair labour practice dispute concerning this demotion to the CCMA.[2]

The arbitrator in the CCMA decided that because there was consent to the demotion, the CCMA did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The employee then appealed to the Labour Court and once again to the Labour Appeal Court, of which the outcomes are set out below.

The Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court looked at Section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act[3] in this regard, which states the following:

“Unfair labour practice means any unfair act or omission that arises between an employer and an employee involving –

unfair conduct by the employer relating to the promotion, demotion, probation (excluding disputes about dismissals for a reason relating to probation) or training of an employee or relating to the provision of benefits.”

The Labour Appeal Court upheld the judgement in the Labour Court and found that although a binding contract comes into existence when employers and employees settle their differences by agreement, such an agreement does not mean that the CCMA does not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The fact that the parties have agreed that the employee accepts demotion is not a complete defence for the employer because the ambit of this unfair labour practice is wide enough to include the implementation of an agreement to accept demotion.[4] The Labour Appeal Court confirmed that the determination of whether a demotion took place, unlike the determination of dismissal, does not require an arbitrator to determine if there was consent or not.[5]

In conclusion, it is clear from the Builders Warehouse case that, although consent is a relevant issue in regard to the merits of a dispute regarding an unfair labour practice, it is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. This means that the CCMA does have the power to hear a matter relating to a demotion even though there was consent thereto.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. (E & OE) 

Bibliography

l Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC

l Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

[1] (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC.

[2] (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC Par 12.

[3] Act 66 of 1995.

 

[4] Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC Par 14.

[5] Builders Warehouse (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC Par 13.

KAN EK STEEDS ‘n SAAK VAN ONBILLIKE ARBEIDSPRAKTYK MAAK AS EK GESKIK HET?

KAN EK STEEDS ‘n SAAK VAN ONBILLIKE ARBEIDSPRAKTYK MAAK AS EK GESKIK HET?

A1_BIn hierdie artikel is die besprekingspunt of daar in die aangesig van ‘n ooreenkoms tussen ‘n werkgewer en ‘n werknemer in terme waarvan ‘n werknemer ‘n demosie na ‘n laer posisie aanvaar, die werknemer nogtans geregtig is om ‘n onbillike arbeidspraktyk-geskil oor hierdie demosie na die KMVA te verwys.

Die feite in Builders Warehouse (Edms.) Bpk. v Kommissie vir Versoening, Bemiddeling en Arbitrasie en Andere[1] is as volg: Die werknemer was ‘n Administratiewe Bestuurder by Builders Warehouse (Edms.) Bpk. Sy het van haar dokters verneem dat sy baie siek is en waarskynlik gereeld in die hospitaal opgeneem sal moet word en verskeie soorte medikasie sal moet neem. Oor die volgende drie jaar het haar afwesigheid aansienlik toegeneem, gevolglik het haar werkgewers bekommerd geraak toe sy nie meer in staat was om haar werk effektief te doen nie, selfs wanneer sy nie afwesig was nie, as gevolg van die newe-effekte van die medikasie. Na gesprekke met die werknemer het Builders Warehouse (Edms.) Bpk. haar tydelik afgedank hangende ‘n ondersoek oor haar vermoë om die funksies van ‘n Administratiewe Bestuurder uit te voer, met inagneming van haar gesondheid en vermoëns. Builders Warehouse (Edms.) Bpk. het ‘n onvermoë-verhoor gehou en die eksterne Voorsitter het beslis dat, as gevolg van die werknemer se oormatige en toenemende afwesigheid, ontslag die gepaste sanksie was. Die Voorsitter het haar egter ‘n demosie in plaas van ontslag aangebied. Die werknemer het hierdie demosie skriftelik aanvaar.

Nadat hierdie ooreenkoms tussen Builders Warehouse (Edms.) Bpk. en die werknemer gesluit is, het sy regshulp verkry en daarna ‘n klag by die KVBA ingedien dat Builders Warehouse (Edms.) Bpk. ‘n onbillike arbeidspraktyk gepleeg het toe hulle haar demoveer het.

Die vraag hier is of, in die aangesig van ‘n ooreenkoms tussen Builders Warehouse (Edms.) Bpk. in terme waarvan die werknemer demovering na ‘n laer posisie aanvaar het, sy tog geregtig was om ‘n onbillike arbeidspraktykgeskil oor hierdie demovering na die KVBA te verwys.[2]

Die arbiter in die KVBA het besluit dat, omdat daar toestemming tot die demosie was, die KVBA nie jurisdiksie het om die geskil aan te hoor nie. Die werknemer het hierna na die Arbeidshof appélleer en weer na die Arbeidsappèlhof, waarvan die uitkomste hieronder uiteengesit word.

Die Arbeidshof en die Arbeidsappèlhof het in hierdie verband na artikel 186(2)(a) van die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge[3] gekyk, wat die volgende bepaal:

“Onbillike arbeidspraktyk beteken enige onbillike handeling of versuim tussen ‘n werkgewer en ‘n werknemer wat –

‘n onregverdige optrede deur die werkgewer met betrekking tot die bevordering, demosie, proeftydperk (uitgesonderd geskille oor ontslag om ‘n rede rakende proef) of opleiding van ‘n werknemer of rakende die voorsiening van voordele.”

Die Arbeidsappèlhof het die uitspraak van die Arbeidshof gehandhaaf en bevind dat, hoewel ‘n bindende kontrak tot stand kom wanneer werkgewers en werknemers hul verskille per ooreenkoms oplos, so 'n ooreenkoms nie beteken dat die KVBA nie jurisdiksie het om die geskil aan te hoor nie. Die feit dat die partye ooreengekom het dat die gegriefde werknemer ‘n demosie aanvaar, is nie ‘n volledige verdediging vir die werkgewer nie, omdat die bestek van hierdie onbillike arbeidspraktyk wyd genoeg is om die implementering van ‘n ooreenkoms om demovering te aanvaar, in te sluit.[4] Die Arbeidsappèlhof het bevestig dat die bepaling van die vraag of ‘n demosie plaasgevind het, in teenstelling met die bepaling van ontslag, nie ‘n arbiter vereis om te bepaal of daar toestemming was of nie.[5]

Ten slotte is dit duidelik uit die geval van Builders Warehouse dat, alhoewel toestemming ‘n relevante kwessie oor die meriete van ‘n geskil oor ‘n onbillike arbeidspraktyk is, dit nie ‘n jurisdiksie voorvereiste is nie. Dit beteken dat die KVBA die mag het om ‘n saak rakende ‘n demosie aan te hoor, selfs al is toestemming daartoe verleen.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Verwysingslys

l Builders Warehouse (Edms.) Bpk. v Kommissie vir Versoening, Bemiddeling en Arbitrasie en Andere (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC

l Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge 66 van 1995

[1] (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC.

[2] (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC Par 12.

[3] Act 66 of 1995.

[4] Builders Warehouse (Edms) Bpk v Kommissie vir Versoening, Bemiddeling en Arbitrasie en Andere (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC Par 14.

[5] Builders Warehouse (Edms) Bpk v Kommissie vir Versoening, Bemiddeling en Arbitrasie en Andere (PA 1/14) [2015] ZALAC Par 13.

MHI IS ONDER KONSTRUKSIE

MHI IS ONDER KONSTRUKSIE

A4_B

MHI is besig om ‘n gedaanteverwisseling te ondergaan. Tussen die stof en die verskuiwings behou ons nog ons humorsin en bly ons oop vir besigheid.

MHI beoog om met ons nuwe kliëntevriendelike omgewing selfs ‘n beter, meer doeltreffende diens aan ons kliënte te bied.   Ons hou julle op hoogte van ons vordering.

As per previous years, we are dedicated to also give back to the community and are we once again collecting Christmas Shoe boxes for the clients of MES.

A4_inner articleMES offers a holistic service to the homeless and unemployed community. They bring hope to these “thrown away people” by offering various programs in an attempt to better their lives and secure a better future. We want them to enjoy a sense of accomplishment and be rewarded for their hard work.

MES is hosting the GROW participants’ “graduation” where they have an award ceremony and receive special Christmas boxes.

Anyone who wish to contribute to these Christmas boxes are welcome to contact Estelle Rossouw on 021 910 8432 for further information.

Together we are changing the heart of the city!