LOSING YOUR LICENCE WITH AARTO DEMERITS: MORE DANGER THAN YOU THOUGHT, AND THE WHEELS ARE TURNING

AARTO (the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act) has been partially in force for years, but its demerit provisions have been on ice for so long now that many of us have lost sight of just how seriously it will impact both ourselves as individuals, and our businesses.

Every individual and every business is at risk

Law-abiding motorists will no doubt welcome the crackdown on serial traffic offenders, but we also need to manage the risks.

Every motorist, every vehicle owner, every professional driver and every transport operator will be at serious risk of losing their licences/permits/operator cards.  Even businesses outside the transport sector will need to manage this – what happens if your sales people are grounded or your office staff can’t drive to work?

The wheels are turning fast now, with amendments to the Act at long last passed by Parliament, and set to come into law when signed by the President.

Will it be delayed yet again?

The demerit proposal has been bouncing around for a decade, with several false starts and there is talk of court challenges, plus the commencement date may or may not be delayed.

But at long last the wheels are definitely turning, and turning fast.

Be prepared!

Unlucky 13 – easier to reach than you thought

The demerit system is complicated, but in a nutshell you will in addition to paying a fine incur demerit points for a whole range of offences.

And anyone with 13 or more demerits will have their driver’s licence/professional driving permit/operator card automatically suspended (3 months’ suspension for every point over 12).  And 3 suspensions will result in full cancellation.

Don’t think that 13 demerits will necessarily take the average driver a long time to accumulate. Consider the demerit points applicable to some sample offences (there are many thousands of them – the table below gives just a few examples).

Sample offences and demerit points

Reducing demerit points, and discounts on fines

You are also rewarded for obeying the law –

  1. Any demerit points you have picked up are reduced by one point per 3 month period you remain offence-free.
  2. Early payment of fines will earn you a 50% discount. Set up a payment control system so you don’t miss payment deadlines.

Businesses and employers – manage your risks

Think now about how you will manage the risk of your employees (especially those employed as drivers) repeatedly offending –

  • How will you monitor your drivers’ demerit points? Although for many offences both driver and operator will incur demerits, some driver offences will apply to the driver only.
  • Are your employment contracts correctly structured to ensure you have access to your employees’ demerit points’ status? And to deal with the consequences if they have their licences suspended or cancelled?
  • Check your insurance policies – must you disclose any changes in your employees’ demerit status? Are you at risk of losing cover?

Credit: LawDotnews

For more information, contact the professional legal team at Goldberg & de Villiers Inc on 041 5019800.

 

 

 

YOUR DOG, CAT OR COW (EVEN YOUR BEES) COULD COST YOU MILLIONS

Our law will generally hold you liable for damages only if someone else can prove that you caused them loss/damage/injury through your “fault” (intent or negligence). That seems fair and logical – if it’s your fault, you pay.

If however the loss was caused by your animal/s, you are in a much more dangerous position – you can be sued on a “no fault” or “strict liability” basis. And that’s a sobering prospect. It means that bad behaviour by Maxie the Mongrel, Skollie the Cat, Daisy the Cow, or even (per an old 1926 case) your “domesticated” swarm of bees, could leave you with a bill for millions without your being in any way careless or at fault.

Ignorance of that risk is very definitely dangerous rather than bliss.

A recent High Court case illustrates.

R2.3m claimed by a dog attack victim

  • The claimant was walking down a public street, minding his own business and with every right to be where he was, when three large “Pitbull type” dogs attacked him, viciously and without provocation.
  • He was very seriously bitten and ultimately had his left arm amputated at the shoulder. He escaped more serious injury or even death only through the courage of a passer-by who fought the dogs off (and was himself attacked for his trouble).
  • The victim claimed R2,341m in damages from the dogs’ owner.
  • The dogs had no history of biting or attacking people and were treated as house dogs. They had the run of the owner’s house and garden/yard, which was walled and fenced off from the street. Access to the street was via a gate which was (said the dogs’ owner) normally kept locked, and was on the day in question double-padlocked.
  • An intruder, claimed the owner, had in his and his family’s absence broken the gate open and left it open – giving the dogs access to the street and to their victim.

Liability and the law

  • The victim was unable to prove that the dogs’ owner rather than an intruder had left the gate open, so had failed to show that the owner had been negligent in any way.
  • But, held the Court, the owner was still accountable on the basis of an old Roman law – the “pauperian action” or actio de pauperie – which makes you strictly liable for the consequences of your domesticated animal’s behaviour. The thinking behind this ancient law incidentally was that “an animal (being devoid of reasoning) is incapable of committing a legal wrong” and there have been suggestions that it be scrapped in our modern law. But as of now it is still very much enforced by our courts, and you remain at risk.
  • Pauperian liability is a complicated subject (involving much Latin and learned judicial interpretation of ancient laws) and you will need specific legal advice if you find yourself on either side of a claim. But in a nutshell you are liable only if your domesticated animal (different rules apply to wild animals) acted from “inward excitement or vice” and against its natural behaviour.
  • You do also have several defences available to you, such as the victim contributing to his/her loss through their own actions (provoking an attack or trespassing for example) or – the defence raised in this case – where the loss results from the negligence of another person. Again, a complicated subject needing specific legal advice, but out of interest let’s have a look at how the Court in this case dealt with the particular defence raised.
  • The defence in question is available if you can prove that a third party had control of the animal but negligently failed to exercise that control properly. The dog owner in this case asked the Court to extend that defence to cover his situation where the intruder had no control over the dogs, but negligently gave them the opportunity to attack the victim.
  • The Court refused, holding that the defence only applies where the third party has control of the animal. The dog owner must therefore pay the victim whatever level of damages he can prove. So – bottom line – you are liable even when the fault lies with someone else, and even when you are completely without fault, unless that other person had control of the animal at the time.

Protect yourself!

First step obviously is to reduce the risks your animals pose to others. Then check that your insurance will cover you if you are sued. Disclaimers of liability need careful wording to afford any hope of protection.

Credit: LawDotNews

For more information, contact the professional legal team at Goldberg & de Villiers Inc. on 041 5019800.

NEIGHBOURS BUILDING? KNOW YOUR RIGHTS RE PLAN APPROVAL

Your neighbours apply to the municipality for approval of building plans. You object strongly – if allowed, you say, the new building/addition/alteration will seriously impact on your property’s appeal and value. It will be unsightly and objectionable. It will ruin the neighbourhood.

How must the municipality’s “decision makers” assess the plans in light of your concerns? A long-running legal fight over just that question has finally been resolved by the Constitutional Court.

The Court’s decision is a vitally important one for all property developers and owners planning to build, as well as for their neighbours, for the simple reason that no construction work can proceed without municipal approval of the building plans (although note that some categories of “minor work” may not require plan approval – ask your local authority for details).

Passed plans and blocked off balconies

  • The owners of a seventeen story city building had been allowed to build balconies right up to the neighbouring four story building’s boundary.
  • The neighbouring building’s owners applied for approval of plans to add another four stories. The problem was that the balconies on three floors of the first building would touch the top stories of the new additions.
  • Predictably, strenuous objections to the building plans were lodged, but in the end result the municipal decision makers approved the plans, and building commenced.
  • Had the plans been properly approved? A string of court battles later, the highest court in our land has had its (final) say on the matter.

3 disqualifying factors and the “legitimate expectation” test

Central to this decision is a statutory protection for buyers and neighbours in regard to various “disqualifying factors”. The proposed building cannot be (our emphasis) “erected in such manner or will be of such nature or appearance that–

  1. The area in which it is to be erected will probably or in fact be disfigured thereby;
  2. It will probably or in fact be unsightly or objectionable;
  3. It will probably or in fact derogate from the value of adjoining or neighbouring properties”.

The Court’s decision – the building plans had not been properly approved. They must go back to the municipality for re-assessment, and the developer is accordingly back to square one. Presumably a demolition order will be on the cards if they are ultimately unsuccessful in having their plans passed.

A decision maker must, held the Court, in assessing the 3 factors above consider the impact of the building proposal on neighbouring properties, from the perspective of a “hypothetical neighbour”. In a nutshell, will it probably, or in fact, be so disfiguring of the area, objectionable or unsightly that it would exceed the neighbour’s “legitimate expectations”?

And whilst it has always been clear that neighbours have to be considered in regard to the “derogation of value” (i.e. reduction of value) aspect, this decision for the first time confirms that their viewpoints are relevant, and must be considered, in regard to all three aspects.

Stronger rights – but not for “sensitive neighbours”

That certainly doesn’t mean however that neighbours can willy-nilly object to plans and expect the municipality to back them regardless of the facts. On the contrary, the Court made it clear that “The legitimate expectations test is not a subjective test determined by the whim of a sensitive neighbour.  The test is objective and based on relevant facts, which would, in the ordinary course, be placed at the disposal of the decision maker”.

The important thing remains that your rights as the “non-building neighbour” just got a lot stronger. Protect them!

Credit: LawDotNews

For more information contact the professional team at Goldberg & de Villiers Inc on 041 5019800.

 

CONVEYANCING FEES: WHAT ARE YOU PAYING FOR?

If you are a first time home buyer and new to the home buying process, you may not be familiar with the conveyancing process, which parties are involved and who pays the costs.

Conveyancing is the legal process whereby ownership of immovable South African property is transferred from one party to another.

The seller has the right to appoint a Conveyancer, of his choice, to attend to the transfer of his immovable property, although this, like other aspects of a Sale Agreement, can be varied by negotiation between the parties.

Conveyancing can be a complicated process and requires specialist knowledge and accuracy – particularly in less straightforward transactions that include things like subdivision or consolidation of properties, or the registration of servitudes.

Because of this, only an attorney who has undergone further qualification by passing the national conveyancing examination is allowed to perform these services.

A Conveyancer is therefore an admitted attorney who has passed a specialised conveyancing examination and has been admitted as a Conveyancer by the High Court of South Africa.

The first step in the sale of immovable property is the conclusion of a valid Agreement of Sale.  Sellers and buyers would be well advised to instruct an experienced Conveyancer to review the Sale Agreement on their behalf, to ensure that it meets their specific requirements and to ensure that the said Agreement optimally provides for the protection of their interests.

The Sale Agreement is handed to the appointed Conveyancer, who will draft the necessary documents. Both the seller and the purchaser will be required to call at the offices of the Conveyancer to sign the necessary documents.

The costs relating to the transfer of fixed property will normally entail Transfer Duty or Value Added Tax.  Transfer Duty is a form of tax payable, by the purchaser, to SARS and is calculated on the value of the property.  Where the seller is registered as a Value Added Tax vendor in respect of the property, Value Added Tax will be payable in respect of the transfer of the property.  If Value Added Tax is payable in respect of the transaction, no Transfer Duty will be payable. The amount of Transfer Duty which is payable is calculated according to a formula based on the value of the property.  Transfer Duty normally constitutes the majority of the costs of the transaction.

Rates and levies must also be paid in full on date of transfer.

The Conveyancer’s fees are prescribed by a tariff and are calculated on a sliding scale based on the purchase price.  The purchaser is normally liable for payment of these fees.

Where a bond is to be registered, the Conveyancer’s fees are prescribed by a tariff and are calculated on a sliding scale based on the amount of the bond and are normally payable by the purchaser.

If the seller has a bond registered over the property, the said bond must be cancelled on transfer, and the seller is responsible for payment of the Conveyancer’s fee for cancellation of the said bond.

Once the documents have been signed by the purchaser and the seller, and the transfer costs, transfer duty and rates and levies have been paid, the Conveyancer may proceed with the registration of transfer of the property, in the Deeds Office.

The above constitutes an outline of the normal conveyancing process.  Other complexities, occasioned by subdivision and consolidation of properties and the registration of real rights may also arise. The sale of one property can often not take place until the purchaser has sold and transferred his property and so on. Conveyancing is in fact a complex process and requires extensive knowledge and accuracy on the part of the Conveyancer.

The period of time it will take to register a transfer depends on the co-operation of the parties and the extent to which they have complied with their contractual arrangements.

In view of the critical role which a Conveyancer plays within the conveyancing process it is recommended that sellers apply proper care when selecting a Conveyancer to attend to the transfer of their property.

At Goldberg & De Villiers the directors in our Property Law Department, namely Adri Ludorf, Tracey Watson-Gill and Bardine Hall and and a team of 8 highly skilled paralegals will gladly assist you with any of your Property Law related needs. Contact them on 041 501 9800.

 

WHY DO YOU NEED A WILL?

  • ensure that your assets go to the loved ones you intend on benefitting
  • ensure that minors are cared for
  • planning may reduce Estate Duty payable by your estate
  • ensure that professionals are appointed to administer your estate and carry out your will and wishes

Contact Bardine Hall at Goldberg & de Villiers In 041-5019800 to assist you to draft a will that meets your needs and wishes.

 

THE IMPACT OF THE JUDGEMENT LEGALISING THE USE OF CANNABIS

On 18 September 2018 the Constitutional Court handed down judgement which declared legislation criminalising the use, possession, purchase and cultivation of cannabis unconstitutional.

According to the judgement, the following summarises that which is allowed and that which is not allowed:

What is allowed:

  • An adult may utilise cannabis in private;
  • An adult to may possess cannabis for personal consumption in private;
  • An adult may cultivate cannabis in a private place for his/her personal consumption in

 What is not allowed:

  • A child may not use/possess cannabis under any circumstances;
  • An adult may not use cannabis in public;
  • An adult may not cultivate cannabis for another person’s consumption, for remuneration or not;
  • An adult may not buy or sell cannabis, including medicinal products (oils, tablets etc)

The impact of the Judgement will have far-reaching consequences for employees and businesses alike. What is therefore required is for employers to update policies and procedures to ensure that they are in a position to deal with the ramifications of the judgement and ensure a safe working environment for its employees, visitors and contractors.

In order to ensure that your company is in a position to ensure it is protected, contact Tracey Mouton at Goldberg & de Villiers Inc. on 041 501 9818 (email traceym@goldlaw.co.za) to conduct an HR audit on your policies, make amendments and educate your employees accordingly.

 

 

PROPERTY BUYERS: BEWARE UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS!

You are it seems in good company if you view times of depressed property prices and general uncertainty as a great buying opportunity.

Just be aware that if it is a house you are after, whether as an investment or to live in, you should do your homework if the property is (or might be) occupied. Generally speaking, buying a property with occupiers is fine if you know about them and have a binding deal in place with them.

But, as a recent High Court decision illustrates, if you aren’t aware of occupiers and/or don’t have a proper agreement in place with them, you could find yourself unable to evict them even if you buy the property “free of lease”.

Before we discuss the case itself, it is important to know that to get an eviction order from a court, you need to prove in terms of PIE (the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act) both –

  1. That the occupants are “unlawful occupiers” and
  2. That it is “just and equitable” to grant such an order after considering all the relevant circumstances.

The Bo-Kaap flat, the sale in execution, and the occupiers

  • A property investor bought a flat in a sectional title development on a sale in execution. As we shall see below, the history of the flat’s ownership, and its location in Cape Town’s historic Bo-Kaap area, were relevant to the outcome of this matter.
  • The Sheriff of the High Court sold the flat for R375,000 “free of lease”, but also with “no warranty that the Purchaser shall be able to obtain personal and/or vacant occupation of the property or that the property is unoccupied and any proceedings to evict the occupier(s) shall be undertaken by the Purchaser at his/hers/its own cost and expense….”
  • The people living in the flat refused to leave or to “legalise … their rights to the property”, and the investor applied to the Court for their eviction.
  • The eviction order was refused firstly because the investor was unable to prove that the persons it was trying to evict were “unlawful occupiers” for lack of information as to –
    • Who the occupants of the flat actually were, with the result that “the court has scant knowledge of essential details of the occupiers of the property in circumstances where these are material to the exercise of the court’s discretion under the provisions of PIE”. Crucially, there was nothing before the court as to the ages or circumstances of the occupiers, so it was unable to consider “all the relevant circumstances including the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women”.
    • When and under what legal right the occupiers originally took occupation (lease, right of habitation, usufruct etc), when that right was terminated and under what circumstances. Note that timing is important here because once unlawful occupation has lasted for more than 6 months, the question of relocation to land supplied by the municipality or government becomes relevant.
    • Whether or not the occupants had any form of written or verbal lease. That’s important because of our law’s “huur gaat voor koop” principle – literally “lease goes before sale”, meaning that you are generally bound to honour an existing lease (there are a few exceptions – take specific advice).
  • Secondly, the investor failed to convince the Court that it was “just and equitable” to grant the eviction.

Again, the lack of information as to the occupiers was relevant, and the Court’s comments on the particular facts of this matter are worth noting in full (our emphasis): “The residents of the area are, generally speaking, not wealthy and Bo-Kaap is home to many poor and working-class people. An eviction of the type sought in this matter, in which a group of related persons appear to occupy a family home that was acquired from the City of Cape Town some time ago, might well render them homeless or at the very least require them to relocate to one of the outlying suburbs that are now home to the many who fell foul of the Group Areas Act. If those circumstances obtain, a court would be required to think long and hard about the justice and equity of ordering people to vacate a dwelling, long occupied, which has been snapped up by a buyer distant to the neighbourhood for investment or development potential. Certainly, it is to be expected of such buyers that when they seek to move established families out of their homes, they do their homework properly and place all relevant facts before the court.”

Do your homework, and do it properly!

Investor or not, the Court’s warning to do your homework applies to you. Establish whether anyone is living in the house, exactly who they are, how long they have been there, and on what basis.

Bear in mind that because leases need not be in writing, you could find yourself battling occupiers who claim to be tenants under a verbal lease. Without a written record they could well claim to be entitled to pay minimal rent and to have many years left on their “verbal lease”.

Credit: Law Dot News

So first prize will always be to reach a written, water-tight deal with any occupants before buying – Phone Tracey Watson-Gill at Goldberg & de Villiers on 041 501 9800 for professional legal assistance.

NEW MONETARY THRESHOLD FOR SMALL CLAIMS COURT

As from 01 April 2019, the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court will increase to R20 000 (as per Government Gazette, GG 42282, GoN 296 dated 5 March 2019).

The Small Claims Court provides a quicker and cheaper method of pursuing civil claims that fall within the stipulated threshold. Often claimants abandon part of their claim to fall within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court where a claimant is able to pursue their claim directly through the court at minimal cost. Many claimants, however, seek legal assistance to guide them with such claims.

Visit http://www.justice.gov.za/scc/scc.htm for further details on the general procedure in the Small Claims Court.

For professional legal advice contact Goldberg & de Villiers Inc on 041 5019800

TRAFFIC FINES AND ADMISSION OF GUILT – WILL THEY EARN YOU A CRIMINAL RECORD?

A criminal record, even for a minor offence from decades back, comes with very serious and lifetime consequences. It will hang around forever, just waiting to ambush you when you apply for a job, or a travel visa, or a firearm licence.

So acquiring a record inadvertently is the stuff of nightmares, and the question is whether you can land yourself in that position by paying an admission of guilt fine? The reality is that we are beset by so many laws and regulations covering every aspect of our lives that most of us have paid admission of guilt fines at one time or another. Usually it’s just to avoid having to defend ourselves in the unpredictability and delay of an over-burdened court system. Sometimes it’s the more serious matter of avoiding a stay in a police cell.

A remedy, but it’s not ideal

The remedy, once you do have a record, is to apply for “expungement” of the record to remove it from the CRC (SAPS’ Criminal Record Centre)’s database. Expungement is however only available to you after 10 years and for certain “minor offences” – plus your application will take a long time to process (“20 – 28 weeks” per SAPS). Note that some specified minor convictions fall away automatically after 10 years – ask for specific advice.

All in all, prevention is very definitely better than cure.

When are you at risk?

You will acquire a criminal record if you are arrested, if the police open a docket and take fingerprints, and if you are thereafter convicted of a crime.

Does that apply to admission of guilt fines?

Firstly, with traffic offences find out what section of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) is involved. Minor offences – speeding, licence offences, illegal parking and the like are normally “Section 341/Schedule 3” offences, where there is no actual prosecution and therefore no criminal record to end up in the CRC.

Other offences however will likely be dealt with as “Section 57/57A” offences. An admission of guilt in those cases lands you with a “deemed” conviction and sentence, and until recently, that deemed conviction and sentence could well have ended up in the CRC database. In practice you would probably still have been in the clear if you weren’t actually arrested and fingerprinted, but several years ago there was talk of convictions being captured with just a name and ID number. If you want to be sure, apply for a clearance certificate – see “Applying for a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC)” on the SAPS website.

A “Section 56 Written Notice to Appear in Court” may also give you the option of paying an admission of guilt fine to avoid appearance in court – in which event section 57 would apply as above.

The point though is that a recent High Court decision means that any admission of guilt fine – even a section 57/57A one and even after an arrest and fingerprinting – should not lumber you with a “permanent conviction”.

In other words, the new position is that while a court-imposed conviction and sentence will end up in the CRC, an admission of guilt fine should not.

Let’s illustrate with a look at the case of the roadside grass seller…

A grass seller’s R500 admission of guilt fine comes back to haunt him

In 2010 a roadside seller of instant grass quarreled with another grass seller about use of a particular spot on the road. The other seller laid assault charges against him, alleging he slapped her twice and pushed her.

Arrested, detained and fingerprinted, the accused paid a R500 admission of guilt fine when given the option to do so. Per standard procedure a magistrate then “examined” the documents and the accused’s “deemed” assault conviction and sentence were entered firstly into the court’s record books and then into the CRC database.

The accused learned of his criminal record for the first time when in 2018 he applied to become an Uber driver (a police clearance certificate being an Uber requirement).

He turned to the High Court to set aside his conviction and sentence on the basis that he thought signing the admission of guilt was his only way of obtaining release from custody and that his rights had not been explained to him. Effectively he denied the assault, and took the chance that the State might still decide to pursue the prosecution in court.

The Court set aside our grass seller’s conviction and sentence, characterising this type of admission of guilt as “not a verdict” but rather “essentially an agreement between the State and the accused” intended only for “trivial offences”, and involving no consideration as to “whether the accused was in fact and in law guilty of the offence”.

The Court: “A conviction and sentence following an entry into the admission of guilt record book by the clerk of the criminal court in the magistrates’ court is not a conviction whose record is permanent” nor “to be entered in the Criminal Record System”.

The bottom line

The Court found that this accused had been pressured into admitting guilt and ordered that the Minister of Police be served with a copy of its order with a view to taking advice from the Commissioner of Police in “devising policy to address the criticism that the SAPS use arrest and detention to force vulnerable members of society who fear being locked up, to admit guilt on petty crimes using arrest and the threat of continued detention.”

But even once such a new policy emerges, be careful here and have your lawyer advise you in the slightest doubt.

Credit: Law Dot News

For professional legal advice, contact Goldberg & de Villiers Inc on 041 5019800.

 

PROPERTY DEVELOPERS BEWARE: DEEMED ACCRUALS CAN SERIOUSLY DISRUPT YOUR CASH FLOW

 

“Never take your eyes off the cash flow because it’s the lifeblood of business” (Richard Branson)

A recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment has confirmed that when a property developer enters into an agreement with a buyer to transfer the property, even if the developer only actually gets paid in a subsequent tax year, the income is deemed to have accrued to the developer at that date. The developer must therefore include the full proceeds of the sale in its income tax return for the year the agreement was signed.

This has the effect of the property developer paying tax before receiving the proceeds of the sale, putting the developer out of pocket until transfer to the purchaser takes place.

A R1.9m tax assessment challenged

A property developer in Cape Town entered into sales agreements for 25 units. Each agreement called for a deposit of R5,000 with the balance of the money to be paid on completion of the development. Purchasers could take possession once the full sale price had been secured or within 60 days of the sale. By the end of the first year 18 purchasers had taken possession and in all 25 cases the purchase price had been fully secured.

Transfer of the properties took place in the next tax year. The developer did not include the sale proceeds in his tax return for the year of concluding the agreements but showed the proceeds in the next tax year.

The Court upheld the decision by SARS to tax the developer in full in the first tax year. The assessment at just under R1.9m was based on taxable income of R6.8m.

Why the developer lost

Property developers assume a substantial risk when they undertake a development – they spend millions of Rand upfront and if they can’t sell the developed properties they make a considerable loss. They mitigate this risk by selling the properties upfront – usually before they commit to building. Clearly they will not get paid until the property is transferred, so they accept a deposit plus a guarantee (usually from the purchaser’s banker) for the balance of the selling price, or alternatively the buyer placing the funds in the conveyancer’s trust account.

Once the developer is assured of selling the properties it then proceeds with the development. On this basis, banks will advance the cost of the development to the developer.

However, in terms of the law as now confirmed by the SCA, the proceeds of the sale of the properties are deemed to have accrued to the developer and are taxable in the year the agreement is signed.

Developers need to be aware of, and plan for, the cash flow implications.

For more information, contact the professional legal team at Goldberg & de Villiers Inc on 041 501 9800.