en en en en id en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en de en en en en en en en en en en en es en en en en en en en en en es en en en en en en en en en en en en fr en en en en en en en en en en en fr en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en fr en en en en en en en en en en en nl en af nl af af nl nl af af nl af af af af af af af af af en en oc en en en en en en en en en nl nl en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en fr en en af en en en af en en en en af fr en en en en de en en en en en en en en tl tl en en en en en en en en en en en
Let's get Legal Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Mossview
Capturing the Heart & Soul of the Bay
Lets get Legal – How do I amend my Trust Deed?
By BylineAdmin on October 31, 2013
As discussed in our previous article, there might be many reasons why a trust deed needs to be amended. The amending of a trust deed is however not as simple and straight forward as one might think.
Trust deeds of this kind can be amended in various ways i.e. in terms of the rules of the Law of Contract or in terms of the derived powers as stipulated in the trust deed itself. A trust deed can also be amended by way of an application to court either in terms of the Common Law or in terms of section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act, 57 of 1988.
Where the founder is still alive a trust deed can be amended by means of the derived powers given to the trustees in terms of the deed itself or in terms of the Law of Contract whereby a later agreement between the founder and the trustees can amend or substitute an earlier agreement between the same parties. The trustees need not be the same persons as the original trustees but they (the trustees for the time being) owe a fiduciary duty to the actual and potential beneficiaries to always act in their interest.  This method ought to enjoy preference due to the legal certainty it brings along with it and should therefore be the default method to be used.
Thus when amending your trust deed it is very important to consult with a specialist on the field of Trust Law in order to ensure that your trust deed is validly amended.
Lets get Legal – Right of extension in a sectional title scheme: Beware of the right to cancel a sale agreement
By BylineAdmin on September 11, 2013
If you are the seller of a property in a sectional title, or a property broker who has spent many hours putting a sale transaction together, the last thing you want is for the buyer to find an easy way out of the contract. If the contract of sale relating to property in a sectional title is not drawn up correctly, you may, however, find yourself in a situation where the buyer has a legal right to cancel the contract.
The Sectional Titles Act governs sectional title schemes which can include townhouses, flats and duets. Quite often, the developer of such a sectional title scheme, will, when opening the scheme, reserve for himself a right to add additional units to the scheme in what is called a ‘right of extension.’ According to the Sectional Titles Act, if such a right of extension is reserved, this must be disclosed to any person who buys a unit in the scheme, and ideally this fact should be disclosed in the contract of sale.
If the right of extension is not disclosed in the contract of sale, it must be disclosed to the buyer in writing before the property is transferred into his name, and the conveyancing attorney who deals with the transfer will have to certify that the buyer was made aware of the right to extend and opted to continue with the sale transaction. If not disclosed, the contract of sale is voidable at the option of the purchaser. For example, if a right of extension is not disclosed and the buyer, after the signing of such contract, opts not to continue with the sale, the contract of sale will be cancelled as being void.
Very often sellers and brokers are not aware of the impact of this legislation, and contracts are drawn up without providing for this notice to the purchaser. It may also happen that the conveyancer only becomes aware of the existence of such a right at quite a late stage in the transaction, and he is then still required to disclose such to the purchaser to ensure compliance with the Sectional Titles Act. If the particular purchaser then suffers from buyer’s remorse or is looking for a way out of the transaction, this may afford the perfect opportunity for an exit without being in breach of contract.
So sellers and brokers should take note of this potential pitfall and obtain advice regarding a proposed contract of sale to ensure that the necessary provision is made for notice to prospective purchasers of any right of extension that may exist.
Lets get Legal – Can water rights be transferred? What do our courts say?
By BylineAdmin on August 30, 2013
Water rights are an essential commodity in the agricultural sector and a commodity with limited availability. Accordingly, the transfer of existing water rights is a critical aspect for many farmers as it affects their ability to expand and further develop their farms. Many farmers also carry the perception that in practise the transfer of water rights is only possible to persons that meet the minimum requirements for black economic empowerment, particularly as regards ownership and management.
In the recent appeal court case of Makhanya v Goede Wellington Boerdery (Pty) Ltd, the court confirmed that the transfer of water rights is indeed possible, that an equal consideration of various factors must take place in the consideration of any application for the transfer of water rights, and that no single factor may be afforded preference or carry a heavier weight than any other factor in such consideration. The judgement therewith confirms that, although empowerment is an important factor in the consideration of licenses, it is not the sole factor to be considered and that a balance must be struck between all relevant factors as prescribed by the National Water Act in the consideration of any application.
In the Makhanya case the farm Goede Hoop belongs to Goede Wellington Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (“Goede Wellington”) in the Wellington area, Western Cape, and Goede Wellington has a right to use water from the Berg River on the farm Goede Hoop. A further entity, ECPA Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (“ECPA”) owns the adjacent farm Middelpos in respect of which ECPA also has water rights from the Berg River for use on the farm Middelpos. The sole shareholder of Goede Wellington (which owns the farm Goede Hoop) is also a trustee and beneficiary of the Middelpos trust, being the sole shareholder of ECPA (which owns the farm Middelpos).
A portion of the water rights of the farm Middelpos became available for transfer as a result of the installation of sophisticated water savings technology. Goede Hoop on the other hand required the use of the additional water to develop a high quality citrus orchard. As a result of the relation between the two farms they concluded a use agreement to facilitate the transfer of the surplus water rights and Goede Wellington accordingly proceeded to submit the necessary license application to the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (“the Department”).
The Department was obliged to consider the application and consider a number of factors as set out in section 27(1) of the National Water Act for the approval of a license.
The application of Goede Wellington was however declined by the Department and the Water Tribunal on the basis that the application did not meet one of the requirements as stated in section 27(1)(b), namely “the need to redress the results of past racial and gender discrimination”.
Goede Wellington approached the courts for a review of the decisions of the Department and the Water Tribunal. The High Court, and later also the Appeal Court, found that the Department and the Water Tribunal misinterpreted the provisions of section 27(1) of the National Water Act by regarding section 27(1)(b) as a prerequisite for the approval of a license application. The court accordingly confirmed that “all relevant factors” must be taken into account for the approval of a license (and thus the transfer of water rights), and although the Department has a discretion, it is still required to maintain a balance in its decision-making and should not award undue preference to any single factor (such as section 27(1)(b)) in the making of its decision.
This judgement shall undoubtedly serve as the reference point for applications for the transfer of water rights in the future and provides welcome clarity regarding the relevance of empowerment as one of a number of factors to be considered in license applications. It also opens the door for the review of decisions which are not taken on this basis.
Mosdel Parma & Cox
033 533 1101 •
Lets get Legal – How do I Amend my Trust Deed
By BylineAdmin on August 16, 2013August 16, 2013
How do I Amend my Trust Deed?
As discussed in our previous article, there might be many reasons why a trust deed needs to be amended. The amending of a trust deed is however not as simple and straight forward as one might think.
Trust deeds of this kind can be amended in various ways i.e. in terms of the rules of the Law of Contract or in terms of the derived powers as stipulated in the trust deed itself. A trust deed can also be amended by way of an application to court either in terms of the Common Law or in terms of section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act, 57 of 1988.
Where the founder is still alive a trust deed can be amended by means of the derived powers given to the trustees in terms of the deed itself or in terms of the Law of Contract whereby a later agreement between the founder and the trustees can amend or substitute an earlier agreement between the same parties. The trustees need not be the same persons as the original trustees but they (the trustees for the time being) owe a fiduciary duty to the actual and potential beneficiaries to always act in their interest. This method ought to enjoy preference due to the legal certainty it brings along with it and should therefore be the default method to be used.
In light of a very recent decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal, it is necessary that where the beneficiaries have accepted the benefits they will have to be joined as a party to any amendment, be it in terms of the Law of Contract or in terms of the derived powers given in the trust deed itself, according to the general principle of the contract for the benefit of a third party and that any variation to that agreement should then be conducted only with their consent. Thus, if there was any previous amendment made to your trust deed, it is important to check whether the beneficiaries who have accepted benefits were made a party to the amendment for such amendment to be valid. Although there is no prescribed form of acceptance, it is suggested that an unequivocal expression of intention to accept is needed, as well as possibly also a communication of acceptance by the beneficiary to the trustees. In many trust deeds it is stated that a trustee accept the benefits on behalf of his minor children. The signing of the financial statements (in which income and/or capital is distributed) by a trustee who also qualifies as a beneficiary may also constitute acceptance as well as the fact that a beneficiary was made a party to the agreement to establish the trust or to amend the trust deed. Therefore, when considering a variation of the trust deed of an inter vivos trust, it is of paramount importance to establish first whether the beneficiaries have acquired any form of a right and whether they have accepted any benefits conferred upon them.
Where the founder is deceased, you are bound by the provisions of the trust deed. If the trust deed does not make provision for the amendment thereof after the death of the founder or if he were to become of unsound mind, the trust deed can only be amended by way of an application to court. When amending the trust deed after the death of the founder, one should proceed very carefully and must comply with the derived powers in the trust deed. This may stipulate that only the “administrative elements” may be amended and the class of beneficiaries may not be changed. Where the trust deed stipulates that it may be amended by agreement between the trustees and beneficiaries, one should look at the definition of beneficiaries very carefully. If the definition of income and/or capital beneficiaries include “those persons related by blood or affinity” the class of beneficiaries will also include the mother and father of a child, as well as the mother’s and father’s blood relations and thus can all brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces qualify as beneficiaries while relations by way of affinity can include all the “in-laws” such as uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces and nephews. Subsequently all these people will have to be made a party to the amendment of the trust deed whether they have received benefits or not.
Thus when amending your trust deed it is very important to consult with a specialist on the field of Trust Law in order to ensure that your trust deed is validly amended.
Mosdel Parma & Cox
033 533 1101 •
Lets get Legal – The Do’s and Dont’s of Suspension
By BylineAdmin on August 2, 2013August 2, 2013
Recently a well-known radio broadcaster was suspended from broadcasting for two days due to a complaint received by his network after he insensitively rebroadcasted a specific newsclip. This particular form of suspension appeared punitive in nature and the radio broadcaster subsequently resumed broadcasting after the disciplinary sanction was completed. On the other hand one also frequently hears about persons being suspended subject to an ongoing invesigation in what is typically a form of preventative suspension. So what is the difference and what are the do’s and don’ts of these various forms of suspension.
Every so often it happens that an employee acts in a manner that warrants suspension. Depending on the nature of business of the employer, these acts may vary from theft by the employee, unauthorised absenteeism, abuse of sick leave, negligence, making prohibited statements in a public forum, to any other form of misconduct by the employee. The question posed by many an employer is whether suspension is the answer in dealing with the situation?
The first thing every employer should keep in mind when contemplating suspension is that there are two forms of suspension, namely preventative and punitive:
Preventative suspension is used as a precautionary measure, for example in instances where an investigation pertaining to serious allegations is pending against an employee and the employer would like the investigating officer to remain objective and not be influenced by the employee. This form of suspension takes place before the disciplinary hearing is held. Very importantly, employees suspended as a precautionary measure in this manner, should always be suspended with full pay. Should the employer fail to do this, the suspension in itself will potentially be regarded as an unfair labour practice.
Furthermore, in order to ensure the fairness of the suspension of an employee, the employer should be sure to grant the accused employee an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and state the reasons why he should not be suspended.
To ensure that the suspension of an employee is not regarded as an unfair labour practice in terms of the Labour Relations Act, the following questions must be asked:
Question 1: Do you, as the employer, believe that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the employee was involved in the misconduct?
Question 2: Is the alleged misconduct of a serious nature?
Question 3: Does the possibility exist that the employee will interfere with the witnesses?
Question 4: Does the possibility exist that the employee will tamper with evidence?
Question 5: In instances where there is a complainant, does the possibility exist that the accused employee will retaliate against the complainant? This is an especially important consideration if the complainant is in a lower position than the accused employee.
Question 6: Does the possibility exist that the employee will commit further or similar acts of misconduct if he is not suspended?
Should the answer to either the first or the second questions be “No”, then the suspension of your employee may not be fair and reasonable and may be regarded as an unfair labour practice. However, should the answer to the first two questions, as well as at least one other question be “Yes”, the suspension may be reasonable and fair, provided that the suspension does not endure for an unreasonable amount of time.
Our courts have held that suspensions of employees for periods longer than 6 months can be held generally to be unfair. Thus, in order to ensure that the suspension of your employees are fair and reasonable, make sure that the investigation into the alleged misconduct by the employee is dealt with timeously in addition to the provisions provided for above.
Punative suspension, on the other hand, takes place after the employee’s disciplinary hearing and can be used as a sanction, especially where the employee has been found guilty of an offence during the disciplinary hearing. The most common use for this kind of suspension would be instances where dismissal would be the appropriate sanction, but the employer feels that mitigating circumstances of the employee warrant suspension rather than dismissal. Unlike preventative suspension, punative suspension, as the name suggests, is unpaid and intended as a disciplinary sanction.
The suspension of an employee can be a very tricky practice which should always be dealt with thoroughly, carefully and in accordance with the law to ensure that the best interests of both the employer and employee are met. Obtain appropriate advice before any decision regarding suspension is taken. If you have been suspended, consider whether the requirements stated above have been met and obtain legal advice in instances where a potential unfair labour practice may have been committed.
Mosdel Parma & Cox
033 533 1101 •
By BylineAdmin on July 19, 2013July 19, 2013
Couples live together, rather than marry, for a variety of reasons. This type of relationship is often referred to as a domestic/universal partnership or a Common law marriage. It is becoming a rising trend in our country. The 2001 Census estimated nearly 2.4 million people were living together in South Africa unmarried and therefore afforded minimal protection in our law.
Living together with your partner does not establish any legal rights and duties between you, regardless of how long you have been living together, whether it is for six days or six years, you generally have no legal protection especially regarding property. Common law marriages and domestic partnerships are not acknowledged in our law and it is therefore not considered as a marriage in community of property as many people wrongfully believe.
How can you protect yourselves? By entering into a written agreement. It will determine and regulate the rights and duties between you and your partner. For instance, the division of the property if you should terminate your relationship, financial contributions to the joint household, rights and obligations towards each other and the division of assets jointly acquired by the parties during your relationship especially on termination of the relationship.
This content of such an agreement can mainly be determined by the parties as long as it is not illegal or immoral and the effect is that parties have joint control over assets.
If your relationship should terminate and there is no agreement, each party would walk away with the assets he/she brought into the relationship and with what he/she obtained in his/her own name, regardless of whether or not the other party assisted in obtaining the asset or increasing the value thereof.
The problem that exists is that a universal partnership is extremely difficult to prove in our country.
When does a universal partnership exists? When the following can be proved:
Each party brings something into the partnership, should it be money, labour or a skill.
It must be for joint benefit
Regsgevolge by die sekwestrasie van ‘n eienaar van grond
By BylineAdmin on July 19, 2013July 19, 2013
By sekwestrasie van ‘n skuldenaar se boedel stel die Meester van die Hooggeregshof ‘n kurator aan wie die skuldenaar se bates op ‘n geordende en effektiewe wyse invorder en realiseer sodat betaling van sy krediteure kan geskied. Vanaf datum van sekwestrasie vestig alle bates, roerend sowel as onroerend, in die kurator van die insolvente boedel en mag die insolvente skuldenaar geensins daarmee handel nie.
Gades getroud binne gemeenskap van goedere se gemeenskaplike boedel word insolvent verklaar, en dus is beide gades insolvent.
‘n Ingrypende bepaling van die Insolvensiewet is waar gades buite gemeenskap van goedere getroud is. Die Wet bepaal dat alle bates (roerend en onroerend) wat aan die solvente eggenoot behoort, ook vestig in die kurator van die insolvente boedel en mag die solvente gade dus nie daarmee handel nie. Die solvente gade moet eers bewys lewer aan die kurator dat die eiendom nie deel uitmaak van die insolvente boedel nie en eers wanneer die kurator die bate(s) formeel loslaat, mag die solvente gade weer daarmee handel.
Indien ‘n insolvente boedel oor onroerende eiendom beskik moet die Registrateur van Aktes ‘n interdik aanteken teen die titelaktes van al die onroerende eiendomme wat in die naam van die insolvente boedel geregistreer is in die Republiek. Dieselfde interdik word ook aangeteken teen die solvente gade se onroerende eiendom. Hierdie interdik bepaal dan dat slegs die kurator daarmee mag handel.
Wat gebeur waar onroerende eiendom in beide gades se name geregistreer is en die gades skei voor sekwestrasie?
Waar eiendom in beide gades se name geregistreer is (getroud binne of buite gemeenskap van goedere) en die partye skei, sal die akte van dading bepaal wat met die onroerende eiendom moet gebeur.
Wat is egter die posisie waar die akte bepaal dat die eiendom na een gade oorgedra moet word, maar voordat die onroerende eiendom oorgedra kan word, word een van die partye se boedel gesekwestreer? Omdat die onroerende eiendom op die stadium steeds in beide partye se name geregistreer is, onstaan die vraag of die eiendom gaan na die gade wie daarop geregtig is in terme van die akte van dading of na die kurator wie aangestel is om die insolvente boedel te beredder?
In die saak van Corporate Liquidators (Pty) Ltd v MA Wiggill is beslis dat ‘n party op die datum waarop die egskeidingsbevel gegee word geregtig word op die bate(s) soos uiteengesit in die akte van dading en selfs as die onroerende eiendom nog nie oorgedra is in voormelde party se naam nie, die kurator van die ander party verplig kan word om oordrag te bewerkstellig en vestig die eiendom dus dan nie in die insolvente boedel nie.
Wat gebeur indien die verkoper van eiendom gesekwestreer word voordat die eiendom in die koper se naam geregistreer word?
Hier het ons te doen met ‘n “onvoltooide kontrak” en in so geval het die kurator die keuse om met die kontrak voort te gaan of dit te kanselleer. Indien die kurator kies om voort te gaan met die kontrak moet hy alle verpligtinge nakom in terme van die kontrak, dit wil sê hy tree in die skoene in van die verkoper.
Waar die kurator egter besluit om die kontrak te kanselleer (dit sal byvoorbeeld gebeur waar die kurator van mening is dat die koopprys nie die werklike waarde van die eiendom weerspieël nie en ‘n hoër prys bekom kan word) dan kan die koper glad nie eis dat die eiendom aan hom oorgedra moet word nie – in regsterme mag die koper dus nie eis vir spesifieke nakoming nie. Waar die koper reeds die volle koopsom oorbetaal het aan die verkoper voor sekwestrasie, is die koper in die nadelige posisie dat hy die koopsom verloor en slegs ‘n konkurrente eis daarvoor het. Indien die koopsom nog nie betaal is nie het hy slegs ‘n konkurrente eis vir enige skade wat hy gelei het as gevolg van die kansellasie van die koopkontrak.
Word huurkontrakte ten opsigte van vaste eiendomme outomaties deur sekwestrasie beeïndig?
Die algemene beginsel is dat huurkontrakte nie outomaties deur sekwestrasie van die huurder of verhuurder beeïndig word nie. ‘n Bepaling in ‘n huurkontrak dat die kontrak beeïndig word deur sekwestrasie van een van die partye is nietig en kan dus nie afgedwing word nie.
Waar die huurder gesekwestreer word kan die kurator dit onmiddellik beeïndig deur skriftelik kennis aan die verhuurder te gee en sal die verhuurder ‘n konkurrente eis hê vir enige skade. Indien die kurator nie die huurkontrak beeïndig nie, sal dit in elk geval binne 3 maande na sy aanstelling outomaties tot ‘n einde kom, behalwe as die kurator die verhuurder binne hierdie tydperk in kennis gestel het dat hy van voorneme is om voort te gaan met die huurkontrak.
Die verhuurder het ‘n stilswyende hipoteek oor al die roerende eiendom op sy perseel indien daar agterstallige huurgeld verskuldig is op datum van sekwestrasie en die opbrengs daarvan word gebruik om die agterstallige huur tot op datum van sekwestrasie te dek. Daar kan ook verdere huurgeld deur die boedel verskuldig wees na datum van sekwestrasie.
Waar die verhuurder gesekwestreer word is die posisie as volg: Die verkoop van die eiendom deur die kurator sal onderhewig wees aan die huurkontrak as gevolg van die beginsel “huur gaat voor koop”. Die koper sal dan gebonde wees aan die bepalings van die huurkontrak.
Indien daar egter ‘n verband oor die eiendom geregistreer is voordat die huurkontrak gesluit is, word die eiendom eerstens opgeveil onderhewig aan die huurkontrak. Die eiendom mag slegs vry van die huurkontrak verkoop word indien die opbrengs nie voldoende is om die verbandhouer se eis te delg nie en ‘n beter aanbod verkry kan word indien die eiendom vry van die huurkontrak verkoop word. Die huurder sal dan ‘n ongelikwideerde konkurrente eis vir skadevergoeding hê teen die boedel as gevolg van kontrakbreuk.
Daar mag uitsonderings wees op die gevalle hierbo bespreek en dit word aanbeveel dat ‘n regsverteenwoordiger geraadpleeg word vir advies indien enige van die bogenoemde situasies relevant is tot u betrokke geval. ‘n Regsverteenwoordiger kan u ook bystaan in gesprekke met ‘n kurator, die bewys van eise teen die insolvente boedel asook die opstel van die nodige loslatingsaansoek indien u die solvente gade is wie se bates binne die insolvente boedel val.
Mosdel Parma & Cox
Mossview Vol 6 – ED 23 | 16 November 2018
Mossview Vol 6 – ED 22 | 2 November 2018
Mossview ED21 – 19 October 2018
Mossview Edition 20 – 5 October 2018
Mossview ED 19 | 21 September 2018
Admin on MOSSELBAAI KRY NOG ‘N VROULIKE BURGEMEESTER
power washing siding on MOSSELBAAI KRY NOG ‘N VROULIKE BURGEMEESTER
Admin on ORGAAN SKENKING
Admin on GEORGE AGRICULTURAL SHOW 2017
Admin on TRISPORT’s RCS SOX 2017 A GREAT SUCCESS
Kos vir die Siel
Categories Select Category ADS Animals Business Focus CLASSIFIEDS COFFEE BEAN Events Gourmet Guide Health Interests Kos vir die Siel Let’s get Legal Mossview News Onder die Vergrootglas People Recipes Sports Uncategorized Van die Redaksie
Copyright © 2018 Mossview. All Rights Reserved. | Simple Persona by Catch Themes