Browsed by
Month: May 2018

CAN TRUSTEES BAN YOUR PET IN A SECTIONAL TITLE SCHEME?

CAN TRUSTEES BAN YOUR PET IN A SECTIONAL TITLE SCHEME?

Problems around the ownership of pets are common amongst owners of sectional title properties, but while laws may be imposed by the trustees of the homeowners’ associations, the requirement for a reasonable approach is entrenched in the very laws which govern how a sectional title scheme should be managed.

Where the trustees have reasonably, after following due process and considering all relevant factors, withdrawn their consent to keep a pet, the owner concerned is then not entitled to continue keeping that pet in the scheme.

This is according to the Prescribed conduct rule 1 in Annexure 9 of the Sectional Titles Regulations which deals with the keeping of pets, including reptiles or birds.

It states:

“1. (1) An owner or occupier of a section shall not, without the consent in writing of the trustees, which approval may not unreasonably be withheld, keep any animal, reptile or bird in a section or on the common property.

(2) When granting such approval, the trustees may prescribe any reasonable condition.”

The phrases, “may not unreasonably” and “may prescribe any reasonable”, clearly seek to assist in the creation of harmony amongst a community living side by side in a sectional title development.

These regulations exist to protect the pet owner from unreasonably strict rules, and equally, they must confer on the other owners the right to a nuisance-free and peaceful environment. This means that both parties need to consider each other’s needs.

This consideration, in granting or refusing consent, will be central to inquiry: will it unreasonably interfere with other’s rights to use and enjoy their units; and which conditions would be appropriate in these circumstances to ensure that the risk of nuisance is reduced to a reasonable level?

For this reason, owners or occupiers can only keep pets in a section or on any part of the common property with the written consent of the trustees. However, the trustees cannot unreasonably withhold that permission. An absolute prohibition to keep a pet could be considered unreasonable and if consent to keep a pet is unreasonably withheld, the owner can take the matter to court.

The trustees must furthermore, base their decision on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The decision to either grant or refuse consent should be recorded in the minutes of the trustee’s meeting, giving reasons that illustrate they have applied their minds to the particular set of facts.

An example of a court case which arose from a dispute regarding permission to keep a pet in a sectional title development was Body Corporate of The Laguna Ridge Scheme No 152/1987 v Dorse 1999 (2) SA 512 (D), in which it was held that the trustees are obliged to individually consider each request for permission to keep a pet, and to base their decision on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

A further extract from this case pointed out that trustees are not entitled to refuse an application on the basis that they are afraid of creating a precedent. The trustees were, in this case, found to have been grossly unreasonable and have failed to apply their minds when they refused the Applicant permission to keep a small dog.

The question of the reasonableness of the actions of the trustees, in granting or withholding permission and setting conditions, will turn on the nature of the pet concerned and the circumstances of the scheme. In dealing with any application for permission to keep a pet, the trustees should consider what type of pet it is, and whether there are already other similar pets at the scheme.

It is unlikely that any action by the trustees to remove a ‘companion animal’ or ‘service animal’, such as a guide dog owned by a blind or partially sighted owner, would be held to be reasonable in the absence of a clear nuisance caused by the animal. The fact that a person sometimes forms an extremely strong emotional tie with their pet could also be an important consideration when the trustees decide whether or not to grant permission.

The trustees are not, however, powerless in situations where the conditions of permission to keep a pet are not being met. The trustees can withdraw permission if it is reasonable to do so. Examples include if the pet is causing a nuisance to other owners or occupiers (e.g. barking persistently), or the pet is considered dangerous to other owners or occupiers.

Where the trustees have reasonably, after following due process, withdrawn their consent to keep a pet, the owner concerned is then not entitled to continue keeping that pet in the scheme. However, the enforcement of this could be tricky for the trustees. The body corporate is not entitled to forcibly remove a pet from an owner’s possession. This can only be achieved by a court order, if – for example – there are too many dogs being kept in an inadequate space, the trustees can get the assistance from the local SPCA who can be contacted to come to the scheme to do an inspection in loco. If it is justified, they will implement the necessary legal steps to have the dogs removed.

Careful consideration and the application of the principles as set out in the rules of the scheme and the above-mentioned regulations will lead not only to peaceful co-existence, but also healthy growth in property values for the developments implementing such approach. A harmonious board of trustees results in a happy community, which in turn will ensure a good name for any development.

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)

References:

CAN THE POLICE SEARCH A PERSON WITHOUT A WARRANT OF ARREST?

CAN THE POLICE SEARCH A PERSON WITHOUT A WARRANT OF ARREST?

This article focuses on primarily whether the police may search a person without a warrant of arrest. On the face of it, it would appear that the search and seizure of a person and premises are in contravention with the Bill of Rights, more specifically section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

With the enactment of the Constitution, there have been a number of constraints on search and seizure powers by police officials. Section 14(a) of the Constitution specifically protects the right not to have a person or their home searched. A person’s home, it is widely accepted, constitutes the highest expectation of privacy. According to section 36 of the Constitution, rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited by a law of general application, if the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.

The Criminal Procedure Act allows the police to search any person or any container or premise of that person without a search warrant. It also allows the police to seize any article reasonably believed to have been used to commit a crime or that is reasonably believed to be evidence that could assist the state in proving that an offence was committed. This can be done only if the owner gives consent for the search or if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a search warrant would have been issued and a delay in conducting the search would have defeated the purpose of the search and seizure operation.

What this essentially means is that a police officer can search you personally or can search your car or house even when no search warrant was obtained and even when you did not give permission for such a search. However, such a type of search without a warrant can only be executed where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a search warrant will be issued to the relevant police official should he apply for it and that the delay in obtaining such warrant would defeat the object of the search.

According to the relevant case law, a police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a person committed an offence or that a person is in possession of an article used or to be used in the commission of an offence. A mere assertion by a police officer that he or she had such a suspicion without any evidence to back it up will not do. This means that where a police officer stops you in the street and decides that you are a drug dealer merely because of your appearance, he or she will not be able to merely argue that there is a reasonable suspicion that you committed an offence or are in possession of an article used in the commission of an offence and, hence, will not be entitled to search you.

In terms of the South African Police Act 68 of 1995 the National or Provincial Commissioner may where it is reasonable in the circumstances in order to exercise a power or to perform a function of the service, authorise in writing a member under his command to set up roadblocks on any public road. Any member of the South African Police Service may, without a warrant, search any vehicle at such a roadblock. However, such a search without a warrant in a roadblock may only be conducted upon the written authorisation by the National or Provincial Commissioner of the South African Police Service.

It is of paramount importance that a police official exercise his or her discretion in conducting a search without a warrant carefully and does not infringe a person’s right to privacy as entrenched in section 14 of the Constitution. It is also important to note that a search and seizure by a police official must be reasonable and justifiable in terms of the Constitution.

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)

References:

  • The Criminal Procedure Act 57 of 1977
  • The South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995
  • The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,1996
  • Geldenhuys T,The Criminal Procedure Handbook, Juta, August 2010
THE IMPACT OF THE CPA ON FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS

THE IMPACT OF THE CPA ON FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS

With franchises becoming a common phenomenon worldwide and franchisors, traditionally, benefitting from a strong bargaining position when negotiating franchise agreements, regulation of the industry has become inevitable and has South Africa’s legislature initiated this regulation through the Consumer Protection Act No.68 of 2008 (“CPA”), which was signed into law on 24 April 2011.

The CPA has forcibly changed the way franchises operate, in that franchisees are deemed to be consumers in terms of the CPA and now have a whole variety of consumer rights. The CPA and its detailed regulations, regulate the whole franchising process, which includes the “franchisor-franchisee relationship” and more importantly, the franchise agreement itself, which must contain prescribed clauses and information in order to be CPA compliant.

A fundamental change affecting the franchise industry is that every franchise agreement must now contain a cancellation clause, failure of which the agreement may be declared void. In terms of section 7(2) of the CPA, a franschisee may cancel a franchise agreement, without costs or penalty, within 10 business days after signing such agreement. Under this provision, if the franchisee excercises his right to cancel the agreement, the franchisor has no remedy to recover from the franchisee any loss suffered as a result of the cancellation.

In addition to the aforesaid, a franchisor must provide a potential franchisee with a disclosure document, in terms of Regulation 3 of the CPA, at least 14 days before the franchisee signs the franchise agreement. This document is aimed at giving the franchisee all the information required in order to make an informed decision. The document must, as a minimum, contain the following:

  • the number of individual outlets franchised by the franchisor;
  • the growth of the franchisor’s turover, net profit and the number of individual outlets, if any, franchised by the franchisor for the financial year prior to the date on which the prospective franchisee receives a copy of the disclosure document;
  • a statement confirming that there has been no significant or material changes in the company’s or franchisor’s financial position since the date of the last accounting officer, auditor’s certficate or certificate by a similar reviewer of the company or franchisor, that the company or franchisor has reasonable grounds to believe that it will be able to pay its debts as and when they fall due; and
  • written projections of potential sales, income, gross or net profits or other financial projections for the franchised business.

Furthermore, the CPA governs the right of a franchisee to select suppliers in terms of section 13 of the CPA. The only platform in which the franchisor can now dictate supply are those goods which are branded or related to the branded products or franchise service.

The CPA also prohibits false or misleading representations concerning the performance, characteristics and benefits of the business, which is regarded as unfair, unreasonable and unjust contract terms. Franchise agreements must also contain provisions that prevent unreasonable fees, prices or other consideration and conduct that is not reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate business interests to the franchisor, franchisee or franschise system.

Sections 7 and 51 read together with Regulation 2 of the CPA, very specifically mark the parameters of clauses that must be included, as well as some that may not be included, in a franchise agreement.

Current and future franchise agreements will be largely impacted by the CPA and therefore business owners must acquaint themselves well with the ambit and workings of the CPA before entering into a franchise agreement. If you are a franchisee, it will benefit you greatly to make sure that you understand your rights and that you are not coerced into entering into a franchise agreement.

The practical effects of non-compliance with the CPA when negotiating and concluding franchise agreements have become apparent in rulings and findings by the National Consumer Tribunal, Consumer Court and National Consumer Commission, which do not tolerate any non-compliance with the strict provisions of the CPA. Readers are thus advised to obtain legal counsel before entering into a franchise agreement.

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)

References:

  • Consumer Protection Act. No 68 of 2008
  • Naudé T & Eiselen S, Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act, Juta, 2014
MAINTENANCE FOR DIVORCED STAY AT HOME PARENT

MAINTENANCE FOR DIVORCED STAY AT HOME PARENT

Are you recently divorced and a stay at home parent? Know your rights and get what you deserve!

In South African law, section 7(2) of the Divorce Act deals with the payment of maintenance in situations where no settlement agreement has been entered into between the parties, and it’s up to the courts to deal with the matter of maintenance.

What happens if I get divorced?

Rehabilitative maintenance refers to divorce situations where a maintenance order is given for a certain time after the divorce is finalised. The court makes a decision based on certain factors, including; the divorcing couple’s current and potential future financial means, their ages, the length of the marriage, their standard of living before the divorce, and any behaviour that may have contributed to the divorce.

In South Africa, no maintenance will be awarded to someone who can support themselves, or has the ability to support themselves. If the stay at home parent has not abandoned or downscaled his/her career to stay at home to take care of the children, no maintenance will be awarded.

How can the law protect me?

An award for rehabilitative maintenance is usually given when the court finds that a marriage has significantly affected the ability of one person to support themselves. When maintenance is awarded, the court takes into consideration the amount of time it will take for the stay at home parent to upskill him/herself to re-enter the job market. In many cases, it isn’t possible for the stay at home parent to re-enter the job market, and they may find themselves without an income once the period of rehabilitative maintenance is over.

Courts need to look at how employable the stay at home parent is when he/she seeks a maintenance award. If employability isn’t possible, the stay at home parent should be granted maintenance until death or remarriage.

The ages of the couple’s children will also be taken into consideration, as well as which parent will be the primary resident parent. Rehabilitative maintenance could be awarded to the stay at home parent to take care of the children until they can support themselves.

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)

References: