About this issue
Here follows a snapshot of important news, cases and legislative happenings in the third week of January 2010, which impact on conveyancing and property law.Previous Issues
/ / 22 January 2010
/ SUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND TYPICAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS: PART II
Part Two of a Four Part Series
Last week we started the first in a series of four articles investigating aspects of the Consumer Protection Act (`the CPA`) and how it relates to practitioners in the property industry. We concentrated on the very crucial question of whether agreements of sale in respect of immovable property fall under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.In this week`s discussion, we look more closely at Section 61 of the CPA, which determines that even in transactions that are deemed to be exempt from the application of the Act, Section 60 and 61 of the Act must still be complied with. We also look at how Section 61 potentially impacts on the `voetstoots` clause of an agreement of sale for immovable property.
read more
Part II (Summary)
EVICTION PRACTICALITIES: DIFFERENT PROCEDURES FOR MAGISTRATE`S AND HIGH COURTS
Theart and Another v Minnaar NO, Senekal v Winskor 174 (Pty) Ltd (483/08, 007/09) [2009] ZASCA 173 (3 December 2009)
This judgment is crucial for practitioners dealing with eviction matters in that it sets out and explains the different procedures to be followed when applying for the eviction of an occupier in a Magistrate`s Court as opposed to the process to be followed in a High Court.read more
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment
PRESCRIPTION AND THE ALIENATION OF LAND ACT: EFFECT ON INSTALMENT SALES
Dongwe NO v Kinghorn NO and Another (16773/08) [2009] ZAKZPHC 71 (3 December 2009)
This judgment addresses the question as to when a claim for damages becomes prescribed in the event of an instalment sale in respect of immovable property being cancelled.In this case, the agreement was concluded in December 2000. The seller purported to cancel the agreement in December 2006 whereafter he sold and transferred the property to a third party in January 2007. The purchaser, denying that the agreement was validly cancelled, "accepted" the seller`s alleged repudiation and instituted a damages claim on 15 December 2008. The seller then claimed that the purchaser`s claim for damages became prescribed before that date.
read more
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment
LAND USE: DON’T ADVERTISE YOUR ‘BOUTIQUE HOTEL’ BEFORE YOU HAVE MUNICIPAL APPROVAL
Cox v Sandton Lodge CC (Case no. 13713, 14 January 2010, Ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority)
This is an interesting ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority in respect of Sandton Lodge CC’s advertisement that it was a "boutique hotel" whilst the establishment did not have the required municipal approval to run a hotel from the premises.read more
The Ruling
Summary of the Ruling
If you have trouble reading this email please click here to view the webpage.
STBB/ITA`s ad hoc email info service that delivers conveyancing and property law information to attorneys, agents, banks, paralegals and other property stakeholders. Please send a STOP DUPLICATES NOTIFICATION to us if you are receiving this newsletter in duplicate. Email your comments and questions to: .
STBB | Smith Tabata Buchanan Boyes` Property Law Service is compiled by Maryna Botha & Lizelle Kilbourn. Igqwetha Training Academy (ITA), a legal educational and training company, is a subsidiary of STBB. STBB | Smith Tabata Buchanan Boyes is a national South African law firm.
Disclaimer: ITA and/or STBB | Smith Tabata Buchanan Boyes accept no responsibility for errors or omissions in this publication. This does not constitute legal advice. Please consult an attorney should you require legal assistance.
(c) Copyright 2009 Igqwetha Training Academy. All rights reserved.