Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Property Defects

When a Property Defect is Your Problem, Not the Seller’s

“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.

What happened

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.

“Stunning” is not a structural warranty

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 voetstoots clause held

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.

Getting the damages calculation wrong

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.

In plain terms

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

Article courtesy of Law Dot News |Property Law | Property Purchase Collapses

Property Purchase Collapses: Can You Get Your Deposit Back?

“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?

A sale that fell apart

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.

Rouwkoop or penalty clause?

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.

Why the deadline mattered

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.

Can the court step in?

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.

The real lesson

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

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Property – buying a house

Buying a House: What Costs Will You Pay, and When?

“It is a comfortable feeling to know that you stand on your own ground. Land is about the only thing that can’t fly away.” (English novelist Anthony Trollope)

With interest and home loan rates at their lowest since 2022, it’s no surprise that South Africa’s property market confidence level at the end of 2025 was sitting at a record high of 87%. That will have been boosted by the country’s positive economic outlook following Budget 2026, and by Budget 2026’s 50% increase in the primary residence exclusion (which should stimulate sales by reducing the CGT payable by sellers).

If you are a buyer about to put in an offer on a house, remember to budget for the various costs you’ll face over and above the purchase price. In all the excitement of your purchase (particularly if it’s your first house!) it’s easy to underbudget. But you really don’t want to risk any unpleasant financial surprises. If you do breach a term of the sale agreement by not paying something on time, you could even face cancellation of the sale and a damages claim.

Only with a proper budget and cash flow forecast can you be confident both that you really can afford to offer for the house you’ve fallen in love with, and that you’ll be able to pay everything you need to, when you need to.

Have a look at the list we’ve put together below and use it to prepare your own detailed cash flow forecast. Ignore anything that doesn’t apply to you and bear in mind that every buyer’s situation will be unique, so this is no more than a generalised checklist.

Costs payable before transfer

• The deposit: Most sale agreements – often titled as an “Offer to Purchase” (OTP) until it’s accepted by the seller – require you to pay a deposit, usually 5% or 10% of the purchase price.
• Bond/home loan initiation fee: This fee normally incorporates a valuation fee and is added to your loan, but check with whichever bank you use.
• Homeowner’s insurance policy and life cover policy (if required by the bank): Be sure to provide for payment of the first premiums before bond registration.
• Balance of the purchase price: If the deposit you paid and the bond you took out don’t cover the full price, you’ll need to pay the balance before transfer.
• Transfer duty: Unless VAT applies to the sale, transfer duty is payable. This is a government tax payable via SARS before transfer. It applies to all property sales over R1,210,000, on a sliding scale linked to the sale price. This can be a substantial cost!
• Transfer fees: The transferring attorney (conveyancer) charges fees based on a sliding scale linked to the sale price. Added to the account will be charges for FICA verification, deeds searches, postages and petties, other disbursements and the like.
• Bond registration fees: If you take out a bond, the bank appoints an attorney to register it, with the fees calculated on the size of the loan and including the attorney’s fees, FICA charges and a prescribed Deeds Office registration fee.
• Deeds Office fees: These are government charges for both transfer and bond registration.
• Rates clearance: Your local municipality will require advance pro-rata payment of municipal rates before it issues the necessary clearance certificate.
• Levy clearance: Similarly, if you are buying into a complex, the sectional title’s body corporate or Homeowners’ Association (HOA) will require pro-rata levy payments before issuing a clearance certificate.
• Occupational interest (if applicable): If you take occupation before transfer, you need to budget for whatever occupational interest is provided for in the sale agreement.
• Utility deposits: If required by your local municipality when opening up water and electricity accounts.
• Moving costs: Don’t overlook these when budgeting!

Some of these costs are easily overlooked, but they can add up alarmingly. So, plan for them all before you put in your offer to purchase.

Ongoing monthly costs after transfer

Include bond instalments, municipal rates and taxes, levy payments (if you buy in a sectional title or HOA), utility charges, insurance premiums for the property and the contents, and so on.

One-off costs after transfer

If you plan to do alterations or repairs, redecoration, garden revamps, furniture replacement or anything similar, add these costs to your budgeting so you don’t suddenly run out of money and have to postpone them. For long-term planning, set aside a budget for ongoing home maintenance.

As always, we are here to assist, so let us know if you have any questions, need any further information, or would like help in creating a cash-flow projection specific to your purchase.

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

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Property – Sequestration

Considering Using Sequestration to Recover Levies?

“The only man who sticks closer to you in adversity than a friend is a creditor.” (Evan Esar)

Body corporates face a familiar problem. Owners fall into arrears. Levies go unpaid. Legal costs mount. The temptation is to reach for the most forceful remedy available.

Sequestration may seem like that remedy. If an owner will not pay, why not have them declared insolvent?

A recent Gauteng High Court judgment offers a clear warning. A body corporate sought the sequestration of a unit owner for levy arrears exceeding R1.4 million. With such a substantial debt, the body corporate’s frustration was understandable. But the application failed.

The court held that the body corporate had not met the statutory requirements under the Insolvency Act. In particular, it had not shown that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors. The court also noted that the body corporate had other execution remedies available and emphasised that sequestration proceedings are not intended to function as a debt-collection mechanism.

What is sequestration?

Sequestration is a court-ordered insolvency process under the Insolvency Act. It applies where a debtor can no longer meet their financial obligations. The court places the debtor’s estate under the control of a trustee, who sells the debtor’s assets and distributes the proceeds among creditors.

The test for sequestration

To succeed, the applicant must establish three things:

1. The debtor has committed an act of insolvency, or is actually insolvent.
2. There is reason to believe sequestration will be to the advantage of creditors.
3. The applicant has a liquidated claim against the debtor.

The second requirement is where many applications come unstuck.

Where sequestration applications unravel

Sequestration is not designed to punish debtors or pressure them into payment. It’s a collective remedy, intended to ensure the orderly distribution of a debtor’s assets among all creditors.

The applicant must prove that there’s a good chance that creditors will receive a meaningful dividend. If the debtor has no realisable assets, or if the costs of sequestration would consume whatever value exists, the application will fail. The court will not grant sequestration simply because a debt is owed.

Sequestration is not leverage

In practice, some creditors use sequestration applications as a form of pressure. Their reasoning is simple: the threat of insolvency may prompt the debtor to settle. But our courts have made clear that this is not appropriate.

In this case, the court emphasised that insolvency proceedings are not a private debt-collection mechanism. They carry serious consequences: loss of control over assets, restrictions on legal capacity, and reputational harm. These consequences are justified only where the statutory purpose is served.

Where the true aim is to recover a debt rather than administer an insolvent estate, the court will refuse the application.

What body corporates should consider

Before pursuing sequestration, a body corporate should ask practical questions.

• Does the owner have realisable assets? If the only asset is the unit itself, and it is bonded, there may be little left after the bondholder is paid.
• Would the costs of sequestration exceed the likely recovery?
• Has the body corporate exhausted more conventional remedies? A judgment, followed by execution against property, may be more direct and effective.

If the answers suggest that sequestration will not benefit creditors, the application is unlikely to succeed.

Other options

Body corporates have several remedies for levy recovery: obtaining a judgment and executing against the property, applying for an attachment of emoluments, or seeking a sale in execution.

Each has its own requirements, but they are all designed for debt recovery (unlike sequestration).

Where this leaves body corporates

Sequestration is a remedy of last resort, not a debt-collection tool. The Insolvency Act sets strict requirements, and courts will hold applicants to them. If you are unsure which remedy is appropriate, we can 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

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Property | Property Law

Panhandle Access to Properties – The Mistakes to Avoid

“You aren’t buying a house, you’re buying a lifestyle.” (Anon)

As more and more residential properties are subdivided and developed, an increasing number of homes are effectively cut off from direct access to the nearest public street or road.

That’s where the “panhandle” comes into play, a narrow strip of land (looking on diagrams very much like the handle of a pan, hence the name) which gives the needed street access to the “landlocked” property. The panhandle can be owned by the property using it as an access road, or it can be a right of way in favour of the property over neighbouring land.

A recent High Court run-in between two neighbours over a panhandle right of way highlights the mistakes made by the various parties involved, and so provides a neat “must do” checklist for everyone in such a situation – buyers, sellers and neighbours alike.

“Wait, what right of way?”

You can imagine the reaction of a property buyer when he was told, only after taking transfer, that his nice little plot was lumped with a registered servitude. Not only did he have the neighbour freely crossing his land at will via a four-metre wide panhandle road, but he also found himself blocked from part of his own land by the neighbour’s gate.

Luckily for the buyer, the servitude turned out to be a temporary one. The wording stated clearly that it was to provide a right of way only until alternate access became available to the neighbour. And a consolidation of neighbouring properties (involving the creation of eight mini subdivisions for a property development) had indeed opened up such an alternative access route.

The buyer accordingly asked the High Court to declare the servitude lapsed, and to order that all “barriers and obstructions” to the panhandle be removed. His neighbour fought back, arguing amongst other things that he had paid R35,000 to the original owner of the buyer’s property as part of a verbal agreement to increase the panhandle’s width from four to six metres.

The neighbour’s problem here is that a servitude has to be in writing, so his verbal agreement with the original owner for a six-metre servitude was unenforceable – certainly against this buyer who had never agreed to it. For a servitude to bind a subsequent buyer of the property, it needs to be registered against the title deed.

The Court accordingly held that the registered four-metre servitude had lapsed and that the supposed six-metre servitude agreement was unenforceable against the buyer. End result, the neighbour loses his right of way and must remove all “obstructions” (the gate, presumably) on it.

Buyers, sellers and neighbours: Mistakes to avoid

Buyers: Don’t only wake up after transfer to the fact that your new property is subject to a right of way or other right of access – it could do serious harm both to your property value and to your enjoyment of it. Check the title deed before making an offer. As we shall see below, relying on the seller to disclose a servitude during the sales process can be wishful thinking…

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Property | Property Law
Sellers: The seller in this case didn’t disclose the servitude, as he was obliged to, in the mandatory disclosure form – the form that every property seller must sign and provide to the buyer. In it a seller must disclose not only any known property defects, but also things like encumbrances, zoning and title deed restrictions, unapproved alterations or additions, and so on. Presumably the seller’s omission in this case was just an oversight, but he could still easily have been sued by the buyer. It’s vital that you always complete that form fully and accurately.

Neighbours: As the neighbour in this case found out to his cost, if you are reliant on a right of way, make sure it’s granted in a written and registered servitude. He might perhaps have been able to enforce his verbal agreement against the original owner, but it was worthless against a subsequent buyer who knew nothing of the agreement.

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

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Property – issues with neighbour

Protect Yourself from the Nightmare Neighbour

“A bad neighbour is a misfortune, as much as a good one is a great blessing.” (Hesiod, 700 BCE)

It seems that every community has at least one nightmare neighbour who delights in objecting to everything, fighting with residents and management at every turn, and becoming abusive and aggressive when they don’t get their way.

What can you do to protect yourself and your family if you live in a residential complex and come under attack from such a neighbour?

Of course, first prize will always be to prevent a long and bitter feud from developing in the first place. But if you’ve tried the “let’s chat about this over a cup of coffee” approach without success, what then?

The case of the abusive neighbour and the protection order

Two residents of a complex ended up in the High Court after a magistrates’ court had issued an interim protection order restraining one resident (a man) from having any contact with another resident (a woman). This after he’d subjected her to verbal and physical abuse, threats, and harassment.

The Court’s judgment doesn’t say where these warring neighbours live. And it provides scant details of their conflict, barring that the victim ended up being physically injured. While these details would have been fascinating, the decision’s importance lies in the Court’s confirmation that our laws do provide complex dwellers with two, and in some cases three, options for protection.

Let’s investigate…

1. The Community Schemes Ombud Service
   
   The CSOS (Community Schemes Ombud Service) has wide powers to arbitrate in disputes concerning complexes and other community schemes. Included in those powers, in respect of “behavioural issues”, is the power to order “that a particular behaviour or default constitutes a nuisance” and requiring “the relevant person to act, or refrain from acting, in a specified way.”

   That’s great in theory but unfortunately the CSOS process is not always as quickly accessible as it should be. So, it’s good news that the High Court in this particular case allowed the victim to pursue a more immediate and direct route to justice using Option 2.

   This is an important outcome, because the golden rule has always been that you are obliged to approach the Ombud Service first in any case where it has jurisdiction. If you don’t, and you decide to go straight to court, you risk being thrown out of court for jumping the gun. But there are exceptions to that rule…

2. The Protection from Harassment Act
   
   The PHA (Protection from Harassment Act) gives you and your family a straightforward and affordable solution, allowing you to apply for a protection order from your local magistrates’ court to force the harasser to stop their unlawful behaviour immediately. The Act is strong in its enforcement, with violators facing arrest and fines or imprisonment of up to five years.

   “Harassment” is defined widely in the PHA as covering any conduct that causes or threatens harm (mental, psychological, physical, or economic) and extending to stalking, cyber-stalking, sexual harassment and physical or electronic communication.

   As this Court put it, “The mischief which the legislature intends to eliminate … is the prevalent violent behaviour in our society and in particular gender-based violence”. The Court certainly considered it relevant that the complainant in this matter is a woman, and her harasser a man.

3. The Domestic Violence Act
   
   If harasser and victim are in a “domestic relationship”, there is a third option that was not mentioned in the judgment as it did not apply in this instance: the protections of the DVA (Domestic Violence Act). These protections are again quick, accessible, and effective, and the definitions of both “domestic relationship” and “domestic violence” are wide.

When are neighbours in a complex limited to Option 1? The High Court has spoken

Now for the crunch. This dispute ended up in the High Court because the magistrate reasoned that the application was prematurely before his court. He said the application should have gone first to the CSOS because the conduct complained of was a “nuisance” which gave the CSOS power to adjudicate the matter.

Not so, held the High Court on appeal. Nothing prevented the magistrate from hearing an application based on the PHA, and the victim had been free to choose either option. In reaching this decision the Court commented that “… the disputes to be dealt with under this [CSOS] Act, are those which concern the well-being of a community scheme as opposed to individuals’ dispute (sic)” – an indication perhaps that our courts will allow a direct approach to a court where “harassment” (as defined) impacts on you personally as an individual rather than solely as a complex resident.

The upshot

It’s back to the magistrates’ court for the duelling neighbours. The magistrate, after hearing both parties and any further evidence, will either make the protection order final, or discharge it.

So, which remedy should you choose?

If your neighbour’s conduct amounts to personal “harassment” or “domestic violence” as well as “nuisance”, you might well have a choice of remedies and should choose whichever is more likely to give you and your family the quickest and most effective protection. If, however, your neighbour’s conduct does not amount to either personal harassment or domestic violence, a first approach to the CSOS will probably be advised as the safer course.

Got a troublesome neighbour? We can 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 your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Criminal Law – Property Phishing Scam

Home Buyer loses R5.5m in Phishing Scam – Don’t Make the Same Mistake!

“[The buyer] must in the circumstances take responsibility for her failure to protect herself against a known risk” (extract from judgment below)

Cybercriminals absolutely love targeting property transactions because they provide the perfect mix of large money deposits, heavy reliance on email communication from trusted parties like attorneys, banks and estate agencies, and deadlines creating a sense of urgency and lack of attention to detail.

Let’s consider just one recent example of a high-value BEC (Business Email Compromise) attack on the purchase of a house.

A textbook case costs a pensioner R5.5m

• A woman describing herself as “an elderly divorced pensioner without the knowledge, experience or resources to protect herself against sophisticated cybercrime of which she had no knowledge or experience” purchased a house for R6m.
• She paid a R500k deposit to the estate agents, and then after an exchange of emails with her appointed conveyancers, she paid the balance of R5.5m into what she believed to be the conveyancing firm’s account.
• In fact, her email system had been hacked and the criminals were intercepting and altering both her incoming and outgoing emails. In a typically sophisticated operation, they ensured that the mails and attachments looked genuine, deceived the buyer into paying the R5.5m into their fraudulent account, and then, via a further chain of back-and-forth emails, delayed detection of the fraud for long enough to give them time to withdraw the funds and disappear.
• The buyer sued the conveyancers for her R5.5m loss, arguing that they had a legal duty to protect her from the BEC. The High Court agreed and ordered the firm to pay her back, but that was reversed on appeal to the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal).
• Critically, the SCA held that in cases of “pure economic loss”, creditors have no general legal duty to protect their debtors from the interception of payments, and there is no inference of “wrongfulness”. So, it is up to the client in such a claim to prove not only negligence by the business, but also wrongfulness.
• In this particular case the Court found that the buyer had “ample means to protect herself”. It was not the conveyancers but the compromise of her email account that enabled the criminals to intercept her emails. She could have paid by bank guarantee but chose to pay in cash. Moreover, she had been warned by the estate agency about this very risk and had heeded the warning and verified the agency’s banking details before paying in the deposit. She could, and should, have taken the same precaution before paying the conveyancers.
• Bottom line – the buyer “must in the circumstances take responsibility for her failure to protect herself against a known risk” and must bear her R5.5m loss herself.

How to protect yourself – 5 steps to take immediately

1. Whether you are business or client, protect your systems from being hacked. Constantly update all your software and anti-virus/anti-malware programs. Use 2FA (two factor authentication) on your accounts. If it is your email system that is hacked and causes the loss, you have a problem! As a business you could also be in trouble for breaching POPIA (the Protection of Personal Information Act).
2. Constantly warn everyone about the risks of email interception and fraud and remind them never to accept any change of banking details notifications without checking.
3. Protect all attachments from alteration (including PDFs!).
4. Before making deposits, phone to confirm all banking details you are given via email. Make sure to phone a number you have confirmed to be genuine – criminals regularly provide fake contact numbers in intercepted emails and documents.
5. Carefully check all email addresses as scammers often make subtle changes – in this case for example the buyer failed to notice that the word “africa” in an email had been changed to “afirca”. Other common dodges are changing numerals or adding/removing hyphens.

Above all, treat all email communications as inherently unsafe and don’t let your guard down for a second!

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 your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Property Law – Occupancy Certificate

Property: Why Do You Need an Occupancy Certificate Before You Buy?

“…there is no obligation on the [seller] to obtain an occupancy certificate and to furnish it to the [buyers]” (Extract from judgment below)

Imagine this – you buy your dream home, pay for it, take transfer into your name, and move in. But then disaster strikes. The Municipality tells you no occupancy certificate was ever issued for the property and that you must vacate. Now.

Both buyers and sellers should take note of a recent High Court decision highlighting the importance to buyers of getting an occupation certificate from the seller before putting in any offer or insisting on a clause in the sale agreement requiring the seller to produce one before transfer.

What is an occupancy certificate and why is it vital to have one?

It’s confirmation by your local authority that the building complies with the approved building plans and that all other requirements have been met.

Without it, it is unlawful for anyone to occupy the building. You can be ordered to vacate, but that’s not all – other risks include your insurers declining any claims you make, municipal penalties for non-compliance, perhaps threats of a demolition order. You and your family could even be in physical danger if the non-compliance results in electrical hazards, fire risks, structural failure, or the like.

Although the municipality can “grant permission in writing to use the building before the issue of the certificate of occupancy”, that will be a temporary permission only, probably only for a short period and with stringent conditions.

The demolition threat and the court application

• Having bought a property from the owner/builder’s deceased estate, the buyers took transfer and happily moved in.
• To their horror, when a municipal building inspector was called in to inspect the building for defects, it came to light that although building plans had been approved 30 years ago, no occupancy certificate had ever been issued.
• The municipality “suggested” that the buyers vacate immediately and threatened to demolish the building, citing a number of outstanding certificates – completion certificates for the structural and storm water, an electrical compliance certificate, a plumbers’ compliance certificate, a glazing certificate, a gas installation certificate, and a soil poisoning certificate.
• The buyers demanded that the executor of the deceased estate obtain an occupancy certificate for them, and when she refused, they asked the High Court to order her to do so.
• The buyers pointed out that, per a standard clause in their sale agreement, the seller was obliged to give them “vacant possession”. That, they argued, meant “lawful possession” requiring the seller to provide them with an occupancy certificate before transfer.
• The seller (executor) replied that she was not bound by the sale or any other agreement to provide a certificate, that there is no general obligation on a seller to furnish a purchaser of an immovable property with an occupation certificate, that the buyers had been given vacant (“free and undisturbed”) possession, and that anyway the buyers as the new owners should now be the ones to apply for the certificate.

The seller wins, and a warning for buyers

The Court refused to order the seller to provide an occupancy certificate, finding that despite the fact that occupancy of the house was unlawful without the certificate, the buyers had “…clearly received vacant possession. [They] received what they purchased. They had no concerns about what they were purchasing and there is no indication in the papers that they enquired about the occupancy certificate at the time of the sale or prior to taking transfer. They have alternatives available to them … and failed to explain why, as the owner of the property, they have not taken any of the steps available to them.”

In regard to the voetstoots (“sold as is” clause) the Court quoted from a Supreme Court of Appeal decision: “…the absence of the statutory approvals for building alterations, or the other authorisations that render the property compliant with prescribed building standards … does not render the property unfit for the purpose for which it was purchased.”

Perhaps the outcome would be different if a buyer is able to prove that the seller knew of the lack of an occupancy certificate and concealed that, or if a buyer sues for cancellation of the sale agreement or for damages. But that is speculation.

What is clear is this: The occupancy certificate is a vital document and as a buyer you should insist that the seller gives it to you before you make an offer, or that at least a term in the sale agreement obliges the seller to give it to you before transfer.

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 your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews