A tenant may be in clear breach of a lease, but that does not guarantee a successful eviction. A recent High Court judgment shows how an unclear cancellation notice and a failure to follow the correct legal process can derail an otherwise strong case, leaving landlords with an expensive lesson in the importance of getting the basics right.
A dementia diagnosis affects far more than memory. As mental capacity declines, families are often confronted with difficult legal and financial decisions. Many are surprised to learn that a Power of Attorney may no longer be valid. Understanding the alternatives can help protect a loved one’s affairs before a crisis develops. Read on for the low-down.
Your top employee resigns and immediately opens up a new business in direct opposition to you. Using your software, your client relationships and your business methods to springboard their new start-up and poach your clients. We discuss, in the context of a recent High Court case, how our law can help you put a stop to that sort of unfair competition. And we share some tips on how to protect yourself from it in the future.
Trusts remain a valuable estate planning and asset protection tool, but they also carry ongoing compliance obligations. Many trustees assume that a dormant trust with no income, assets, or activity can simply be left alone. SARS has made it clear that inactivity does not remove a trust’s compliance obligations. With penalties now being imposed for outstanding trust returns, dormant trusts may be attracting more attention than their trustees realise.
“The buyer needs a hundred eyes, the seller not one.” (George Herbert)
A Marina Da Gama property. A collapsed wooden deck. A purchase price of R1.55 million and repair costs claimed of just over R100 000. The facts are not complicated. But the legal battle that followed lasted more than a decade.
The buyers purchased a residential property in October 2013 after the estate agent described it as being in stunning condition. They took occupation in January 2014. Seven months later, the upper wooden deck collapsed. Expert evidence subsequently confirmed that the decks had been constructed without approved plans and were not built to National Building Regulations standards. The defects were latent, meaning they were not visible to a layperson on inspection.
The buyers pursued the estate agent, his close corporation, and the seller across eight separate claims. At the close of the buyers’ case, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the matter on the basis that insufficient evidence had been presented against them. The court agreed and dismissed all the claims.
The buyers argued that the estate agent’s description of the property as being in “stunning” or “beautiful” condition amounted to an actionable misrepresentation. The court disagreed.
Descriptive sales language of that kind is puffery. It reflects aesthetic opinion, not structural fact. It does not amount to a representation about the integrity of the building, compliance with approved plans, or the absence of latent defects. To cross from puffery into misrepresentation, a statement must assert a verifiable fact. Words like “stunning” do not do that.
The estate agent’s duty of disclosure, under the legislation applicable at the time, extended to material facts within his personal knowledge. It did not require him to conduct engineering or technical investigations to uncover hidden structural defects. The defects would not have been visible to a layperson. They were not within his knowledge. No actionable misrepresentation was established.
The sale agreement contained a voetstoots (as it stands) clause. To defeat it, the buyers were required to prove two things: that the seller had actual knowledge of the latent defect, and that he deliberately concealed it with the intention to defraud.
Neither was established. The buyers’ own evidence undermined the claim. Both buyers described the seller as a decent, honest person. One stated plainly that the seller did not know about the defects. Quick-fix repairs noted by the experts did not change that conclusion. Repairs may reflect ordinary maintenance. They do not, on their own, establish knowledge of a structural defect or an intention to deceive. Fraud is not lightly inferred.
Even if the buyers had established liability, their damages claim faced a separate problem. The actio quanti minoris, a claim for a reduction in the purchase price, entitles a buyer to compensation for the property’s reduced value caused by the defect. The reasonable cost to repair may serve as evidence of that reduction, but no more. The buyers simply claimed replacement costs, which was entirely the wrong way of going about it.
Puffery is not a promise – in fact, it’s to be expected in real estate listings. A voetstoots clause is not easily defeated. And the burden of investigating a property before signing rests firmly on the buyer.
Nine court days. Twelve years. Presumably substantial legal costs. Every claim dismissed. Get advice before you sign, not after the deck collapses.
Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as 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 us for specific and detailed advice.
© LawDotNews
“I can’t afford to die; I’d lose too much money.” (George Burns, comedian)
At the heart of any estate plan lies your will. Pair it with a file containing all the information and documents that your executor and heirs will need to wind up your estate, and you’ve laid a solid foundation for protecting your loved ones when you’re no longer around to do so.
Hopefully, most of us have already crossed those two essentials off our “to do” list. But there’s a third step which doesn’t always receive the attention it requires: planning for the costs your estate will have to pay, including a number of taxes.
As with all things to do with SARS and tax, there are many detailed requirements and grey areas involved, so what follows is a general guide only. It’s no substitute for specific professional advice.
CGT is one of those low-profile taxes that lurks around unobtrusively in the wings, being ignored and forgotten about until it suddenly pops out of the woodwork.
In this case, the “popping out of the woodwork” will happen when you’re no longer around to be ambushed by it. That’s because CGT is triggered by a taxpayer’s death, which is a “deemed disposal” tax event. In other words, your assets are deemed to have been sold at market value on the day you died. And that triggers a tax liability for your estate on the asset’s growth in value since you acquired it – the capital gain.
Before we get into the nitty-gritty of putting figures to that liability, let’s share a smidgen of good news.
Note firstly that no CGT at all is payable on “personal-use assets”, retirement fund benefits and most mainstream life policies.
Secondly, there’s “spousal rollover relief”: liability for CGT on assets left to your spouse is “rolled over” so that it’s payable not by your estate but later on by your spouse (on sale) or by their estate (on death). That, of course, can make a tremendous practical difference in ensuring that your spouse will be okay financially.
Thirdly, the annual exclusion in year of death, the primary residence exclusion and the small business disposal exclusion can all reduce CGT substantially. And as we note below, Budget 2026 has boosted them all. Good news indeed!
Now for the actual CGT calculation, which will give you a rough idea of the final liability so you can plan for it:
Putting together a comprehensive estate plan, anchored by your will, is essential to ensure that your loved ones are properly catered for after you’re gone. You know who to call if you need any help!
Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as 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 us for specific and detailed advice.
© LawDotNews
“A creature with a big enough head to make a contract should have the sense to make one it can keep.” (Barbara Kingsolver)
A R1.725 million deposit. A bank guarantee that never arrived. A property that ultimately sold for significantly less than the original price. What happens to the deposit money?
The seller agreed to sell an agricultural property in Kyalami for R17.25 million. The purchaser paid a deposit of R1.725 million into the estate agent’s trust account. The balance of the purchase price was to be secured by a bank guarantee on request.
The seller called for the guarantee and gave 14 days to comply. When it was not provided, a further notice gave five business days to remedy the breach. The guarantee was still not furnished. The seller cancelled the agreement and claimed the full deposit.
The purchaser attempted to recover it, but the claim failed.
A true rouwkoop clause – from the Dutch for “regret-purchase” – allows a party to withdraw from a sale by paying a fixed amount. It is an agreed exit mechanism, not a consequence of breach. A forfeiture clause operates differently. It is triggered by breach and is subject to the Conventional Penalties Act. The clause in this case fell into the latter category. The purchaser’s only remaining recourse was section 3 of the Act, which allows a court to reduce a penalty if it is out of proportion to the prejudice suffered.
The purchaser argued that the word “timeously” meant within a reasonable time, not strictly within the five-day notice period. The court rejected that argument.
Read in context, the agreement created a clear notice-and-remedy mechanism. The five-day period was the operative timeframe. “Timeously” did not introduce flexibility. It referred back to the period expressly stipulated in the contract.
Once the guarantee was not provided within that period, the seller’s right to cancel arose. What the purchaser might have done after the deadline was irrelevant.
The purchaser invoked section 3 of the Conventional Penalties Act. That argument did not succeed.
The court looked beyond the arithmetic. It considered the broader consequences of the failed transaction, including the collapse of an onward purchase, the loss of a prior offer, bridging finance, and extended holding costs.
On that evidence, the seller’s prejudice was substantial. The forfeited deposit bore a reasonable relationship to that prejudice. There was no basis for interference.
Deadlines in property transactions are not flexible unless the agreement says so. A deposit is not a placeholder and sellers don’t have to play nice. The bottom line? Get advice before you sign.
Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as 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 us for specific and detailed advice.
© LawDotNews
Couples who sign antenuptial contracts often believe they have permanently settled the question of money in their marriage. What is mine stays mine. What is yours stays yours.
Not so fast. The Constitutional Court recently expanded access to redistribution orders for spouses married out of community of property without accrual, particularly where strict enforcement of an antenuptial contract would produce unfair financial consequences at divorce. A 2025 KwaZulu-Natal High Court judgment shows what the redistribution remedy can deliver in practice.
The administrators of residential complexes tread a fine line. They must implement and enforce conduct rules for the good of the complex as a whole, but without unjustly impinging on the constitutional rights of individuals.
A recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision, granting a sight-impaired owner a limited right to exclusive use of a section of common area for his washing machine, has brought this balancing act into sharp focus. We discuss the reasoning behind that outcome, with some suggestions on how bodies corporate and homeowners’ associations should approach this sort of situation in future.
Not every difficult manager is a workplace bully, and not every uncomfortable workplace is an unlawful one. But where exactly does the law draw the line?
A 2023 Labour Court judgment tackles that question head-on, with important lessons for both employers and employees. If you’ve ever wondered whether a harassment claim would succeed against your employer, or whether your management style exposes your business to legal risk, the answer may surprise you.
