PAY YOUR LEVIES, OR ELSE…

Dear Mr Lawyer

I am the owner of a sectional title, and I have paid my levies every month as required, until the water started seeping through the ceiling of my enclosed balcony into my section when it rains. The leak was clearly emanating from a defect in the common property. I asked the body corporate on numerous occasions to repair the defect, yet after four months of writing letters and sending emails the body corporate still has not done anything to honour this simple request. As a frustrated owner I resorted to desperate measures and employed a contractor to repair the property defect. I settled the bill myself.

May I withhold my levies for a period to set off the money that is owed to me by the body corporate?

Dear Mr Owner

Although this action may sound reasonable, the right to stop paying or to set off a debt against levies is not legally justified and owners are not, under any circumstances, entitled to simply withhold levies.

There is no provision in the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 or the rules that gives an owner the right to withhold levy payments. Even if an owner incurs expense in performing an emergency repair to the common property, and believes that the body corporate owes him money, the owner may only set off the debt against the levies once it becomes liquid.

An amount can only be liquid once it has been agreed upon. An owner cannot set off the amount he believes he is entitled to deduct. The trustees, judge or arbitrator must have confirmed the amount.

If Mr Owner does withhold his levies without the amount being liquid, he is subject to the following sanctions in terms of the prescribed rules:

l Firstly, the trustees are entitled to charge interest on arrear amounts at a rate determined by them, and so the defaulting owner may receive a larger account, due to the interest on his arrears, than if he had paid his levies.

l What is more, The Sectional Titles Act imposes a positive obligation on trustees to recover levies from defaulting owners. Not only does the Act empower them to charge interest, the scheme attorneys will most likely issue summons against the defaulter for all costs that the Body Corporate may incur in recovering any arrears.

l Secondly, the prescribed management rules provide that, except in the case of special and unanimous resolutions, an owner is not entitled to vote if any contributions payable by him in respect of his section have not been duly paid. Therefore, an owner who withholds his levies is unable to vote for ordinary resolutions in respect of the section that he is withholding levies on.

Mr Lawyer, how does an owner deal with a situation where he believes the body corporate is liable for payment?

A dispute must be declared with the Body Corporate by written notice of the dispute or query to the trustees. The trustees or Body Corporate then have 14 days from receipt to resolve the dispute. During this period, the parties should meet to try and resolve the dispute. If there is no resolution after the 14-day period, either party may demand that the dispute be referred to arbitration. The arbitrator must make his/her recommendations in settlement of the dispute within 7 days from the date of commencement of the dispute. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding and may be made an order of the High Court.

It is clear that prescribed processes are in place according to which disputes and related issues can be settled. Not only will this ensure that you act within the legal guidelines, but it will also eliminate unnecessary frustration.

Copyright © Succeed Group. All rights reserved | Contact Us at info@succeedgroup.co.za

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

TRAFFIC OFFICER CONFISCATES YOUR PHONE – WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW!

Since 2011 the City of Cape Town: Traffic By-Law, 2011 has made it possible for an authorised officer to confiscate your cellular device if you are caught using it in your car while driving. If you end up getting caught red-handed, these are a few things you should know to make sure that all the correct procedures are followed when your cellular device gets confiscated.

The City of Cape Town: Traffic By-Law, 2011 (hereinafter “the By-Law”) prohibits driving a motor vehicle on a public road, firstly, while holding a cellular or mobile telephone or any communications device with any part of the body and, secondly, while using or operating a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device unless it is affixed to the vehicle (like a handsfree kit).

According to the By-Law an authorised officer may, in the interest of public safety, confiscate a handheld communication device if he informs the owner of such device of the reasons for doing so. He must issue a receipt to the owner, stating the place at which such device may be claimed, and he must follow all procedures contained in any policy of the city dealing with the confiscation and impoundment of property. The policy applicable in the City of Cape Town is called the Standard Operating Procedure on the Impoundment of Goods and Animals, 2012.

An authorised official exercising authority in terms of any By-Law of the City to impound goods, shall issue to the offending party a receipt for any property removed and impounded. This receipt must indicate:

a) A list of the property to be removed and impounded;
b) the physical condition of the goods (to ensure that they are returned in the same physical condition that they were in when impounded);
c) the address where the impounded goods will be kept;
d) the hours during which the goods may be collected;
e) the maximum period for storage of goods before they are disposed of;
f) the conditions for the release of the impounded goods;
g) the name and office number of a council official to whom any representation regarding the impoundment may be made;
h) the date and time by when representation must be made;
i) the terms and conditions relating to the sale of unclaimed goods, by public auction, where no claim (and/or representation) is received.

The City may sell any cellular device that hasn't been claimed within ninety days after the date of impoundment through public auction which shall be advertised in local newspapers. Municipal officials and councillors, their spouses, relatives and acquaintances are prohibited from purchasing any of these impounded goods. Fees may be levied for the storage of the cellular device and any other expense incurred by the Council during impoundment. Said fees shall be determined by Council and may be adjusted from time to time. Fees and fines shall be paid at the Council cash office between the hours of 08:00 and 16:00 on Mondays to Fridays.

Goods may be returned to the owner, or his or her representative, upon presentation of proof of payment of all fees related to the impounding and storage of the goods and any fines imposed prior to and/or during impoundment. Owners or their representatives can collect their goods during the hours and at the venue indicated in the impoundment notice served on the offender.

Officials of the City must take reasonable steps to prevent any damage to impounded goods; however, it will not be responsible for any damage caused to goods where a reasonable duty of care was exercised. Digital photographs shall be taken of all impounded goods.

A person who contravenes a provision of this By-Law commits an offence and a person who commits such an offence is, on conviction, liable for a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or both.

Reference List

  • The Standard Operating Procedure on the Impoundment of Goods and Animals, 2012
  • The City of Cape Town: Traffic By-Law, 2011

Copyright © Succeed Group. All rights reserved | Contact Us at info@succeedgroup.co.za

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

THE NEW SOUTH AFRICAN IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS TIGHTENS SCREWS FOR FOREIGN SPOUSES

This article looks at the New South African Immigration Regulations that came into effect on 26 May 2014 and how it affects a spouse attempting to renew or obtain a spousal visa.

A Newlands family was torn apart after South Africa’s new regulations barred Louise Johnson from returning to South Africa after going on a family holiday in Namibia. Section 27 of the new regulations declared Louise Johnson, a Danish-born spouse of a South African, as an undesirable person. People who are travelling on an expired visa will be declared as undesirable people. This is very controversial because many foreigners, such as Louise, have applied well within the time limit, which is 60 days before the expiry thereof, and have still not received their renewed visa.

In order to apply for a spousal and life partner visa one must prove that the relationship has existed for two years before an application for this visa is made. One must also prove that the relationship still exists after two years. Further, if you are married to or in a life partnership with a South African citizen or a permanent resident holder, you have to be married for a continuous period of five years before an application for permanent residency can be launched.

Visa renewals often take months to process and in the past a receipt issued by the Department of Home Affairs, indicating that an application was pending would suffice. The new regulations bring this to an end. Foreigners who remain in South Africa for anywhere between one to thirty days after the expiry date of their valid visa will be deemed to be undesirable for a period of twelve months. A second transgression within a period of twenty-four months will render them “undesirable” for a period of two years and should they overstay for more than thirty days they will be classified as “undesirable” for five years.

For example Olivia Lock, a British National, who is married to a South African, was prohibited from returning to South Africa for 12 months in May, due to leaving South Africa on an expired visa whilst awaiting the outcome of a renewal of her visa. United States citizen, Shaima Herman, married to a South African, was also declared an “undesirable person”, after a two-year wait for the approval of her spousal visa. Her husband indicated that she had visited the Department of Home Affairs on 14 separate occasions and yet her visa remains delayed.

Haniff Hoosen from the Democratic Alliance stated that: “Media reports and public outcry suggest that in less than a month the new regulations have already ripped apart families, dissuaded investors, and led to the suspension and even cancellation of multimillion-rand film and tourism ventures”. He called for the regulations to be reviewed and debated by Parliament’s Home Affairs Portfolio Committee.

The Minister of Home Affairs, Malusi Gigaba, asserted that the new immigration regulations proposing to be in the best interests of South Africa’s security, is an insufficient excuse for inefficient policy. He further states that: “Omissions and lack of definitions and criteria raised serious concerns about the new regulations, which would be subject to “misappropriation and abuse” by the Department of Home Affairs and its officials.”

It is very likely that one can expect to see court cases challenging these regulations very soon but in the meantime one should not travel out of South Africa without a valid visa, or you will be declared an “undesirable person”.

Copyright © Succeed Group. All rights reserved | Contact Us at info@succeedgroup.co.za

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

INTERNATIONAL LOVE MEETS THE LAW

A South Africa citizen “x” decides that he is going to study in England after leaving school. During this time abroad he meets the love of his life “y”, a British citizen. Both parties decide that they want to marry each other and are now unsure if the marriage will be valid once they return back to South Africa.

The abovementioned marriage and/ or relationship adequately demonstrate the need for private international law. Men and women of different domiciles and nationalities may fall in love and marry in the country where they happen to reside. Generally speaking, the formal validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the place where the marriage was solemnized. This is based on the common law doctrine of the law of the country were the marriage was solemnized ( lex loci celebrationis).

This rule is also subject to the fraud of the law (fraus legis) doctrine that will prevent parties from deliberately solemnizing their marriage elsewhere to escape some essential requirements of the law of the place of a party’s dwelling house (lex domicilii). Kassim v Ghumran & another 1981 Zimbabwe LR 22, may be considered more fully to illustrate the principle of evasion. Here Ghumran and Kassim had eloped from Zimbabwe to Malawi in order to marry. Kassim was only 15 years old and the consent of her parents, which was not obatined, was required for her marriage under the law of Zimbabwe. Kassim’s father sought an order declaring that the Malawian Marriage is void. The court held that where one or both parties were domiciled in the area of the court and had their marriage deliberately solemnized elsewhere to escape an essential requirement of the lex domicilii acted in fraudem legis.

The last exception to the lex loci celebrationis is the principle of public policy. The marriage will be against public policy if it offends fundamental moral principles of that society. Since the marriage relationship is one of the fundamental institutions of our society, it follows, none the less, that public policy will raise its head here. It does so primarily in two broad areas; marriages tainted by incest, want of age, or lack of consent and polygamous marriages, especially before the recognition of customary marriages is South Africa. The consensus seems to be that the union of siblings (whether of half or full blood) and the union of any blood relatives in the direct line will be against public policy (contra bonis mores).

Therefore their marriage will be valid in South Africa if they complied with the abovementioned international private law principles and that the marriage was legally conclude in accordance with the laws of England. It is also important to note that the legal consequences of the marriage will be governed by different international private law principles and the validity of the marriage will be determined according to the abovementioned principles.

Copyright © Succeed Group. All rights reserved | Contact Us at info@succeedgroup.co.za

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF UNMARRIED FATHERS

The rights and responsibilities of biological fathers who were not married to the child’s mother at the time of conception or birth can be uncertain. In this article we will discuss when a biological father obtains rights and responsibilities towards their child(ren).

Alissa has a 7-year-old son called Jessie. Alissa had been living with her boyfriend, Mike, for 2 years when Jessie was born. Alissa and Mike were never married and Mike left their common home when Jessie was only 1 year old. Mike makes contact with Jessie and contributes some small amounts towards his maintenance every few months. Alissa would like to know what rights and responsibilities Mike has towards Jessie.

Section 20 of the Children’s Act (“the Act”) confers parental responsibilities and rights on married fathers if they are married to the child’s mother or if they were married at either the time of the child’s conception, birth or any time between conception and birth.

The biological father of a child who does not have parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child in terms of Section 20 of the Act can acquire these responsibilities and rights if one of the following conditions are fulfilled:

  • at the time of the child’s birth he is living with the mother in a permanent life partnership; or
  • if he consents to be identified; or
  • he successfully applies in terms of Section 26 of the Act to be identified as the father; or
  • he pays damages in terms of customary law; or
  • if he contributes or has attempted in good faith to contribute to the child’s upbringing for a reasonable period; or
  • if he has contributed or attempted in good faith to contribute towards expenses in connection with the maintenance of the child for a reasonable period.[1]

It may be difficult to determine whether two persons are in a permanent life partnership or not. This term lacks a precise definition and has been described as “a stable monogamous relationship where a couple who do not wish to (or are not permitted to) marry, live together and share an intimate relationship” that is akin to marriage. The Constitutional Court has given limited recognition to the relationships labelled as “life partnerships” or “permanent life partnerships”, but no specific meaning has been attached to these terms.[2]

It is important to note that this section applies regardless of whether the child was born before or after the commencement of this Act, and that it does not affect the duty of a father to contribute towards the maintenance of the child.[3]

If there is a dispute between the biological father and the biological mother of a child with regard to the fulfillment by that father of the conditions set out above, the matter must be referred for mediation to a family advocate, social worker, social service professional or other suitably qualified person. Any party to the mediation may have the outcome of the mediation reviewed by a court.[4]

From this article we can see that the only clear responsibility of Mike is that of paying maintenance to support Jessie. Due to the fact that the definition of a permanent life partnership is so vague, Mike and Alissa should refer this matter to one of the abovementioned mediators to obtain certainty about Mike’s rights and responsibilities towards Jessie.

References:

  • The Children’s Act 38 of 2005
  • Du Bois F, Willie’s Principle of South African Law (2007), 9th ed.

[1] Section 21 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
[2] Du Bois F, Willie’s Principle of South African Law (2007), 9th ed., p363.
[3] Section 21(2) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
[4] Section 21(3) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

WHAT CONSTITUTES FAIR DISMISSAL?

Labour law emphasises that every employee has the right not to be dismissed unfairly. This law defines the meaning of dismissal and when it may lawfully occur. Substantive and procedural fairness determines whether the dismissal was fair.

Dismissal means the following: The termination of a contract of employment with or without notice, and also if the employer fails to provide a fixed-term contract, or he does renew the contract, but on less favourable terms than the employee had reasonably expected.

Section 188 of the Labour Relations Act provides that dismissal is fair if the employer can prove that the dismissal is related to the employee's conduct or capacity, or if it can be proven that the dismissal is based on the employer's operational requirements. Dismissal is usually fair if a fair procedure was followed. Good practices are set out in legislation which outlines the discharge processes and must be taken into account.

Labour legislation provides for three different types of discharge, namely dismissal due to misconduct, poor performance or operational requirements. Certain procedures must be followed for each type of discharge. Employers sometimes confuse misconduct with poor performance. It is very important that the correct procedure is followed, but it is also necessary that the cause of the unsatisfactory behaviour is determined.

Misconduct is when the employee has violated certain rules such as rules against dishonesty or theft, or has refused to obey reasonable and lawful instructions. In these situations the employee has decided not to honour the code of conduct. The employee has knowingly violated a rule and therefore the person should be disciplined. This may result in written warnings and/or possible dismissal.

In contrast, poor performance involves situations where the employee is not in deliberate violation of any regulations but it may involve circumstances over which the employee may not necessarily have control. In this case other factors could be the cause of poor performance, such as lack of resources, inexperience, inadequate training or poor health. It is clear that the employee is not directly responsible for the behaviour and therefore disciplinary actions cannot be taken. The employee cannot be blamed for something like illness, therefore a counselling process is followed in lieu of a disciplinary hearing in order to find solutions for the poor performance.

The last type of dismissal is due to operational requirements. This type of discharge has to do with economic conditions, including a shortage of work or a lack of money. These are cases where the employer can no longer afford to retain a certain number of employees or new computers or sophisticated equipment have been acquired which renders a number of employees redundant. These are factors beyond the control of the employee and involves steps that the employer takes to protect his or her business from being ruined financially.

It is very important that the process contained in section 189 of the Labour Relations Act be followed here. This process requires the employer to engage with the employee in a meaningful way in order to negotiate and disclose certain information before dismissal can take place.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

ROAD CYCLISTS vs. MOTORISTS

The popularity of road cycling as a competitive sport and a form of transportation is on the rise. This naturally leads to major safety concerns and serious accidents among both groups of road users.

Both the National Road Traffic Act[1] and the Western Cape Provincial Road Traffic Act[2] regulate the rights of and rules for pedal cyclists and motor vehicle drivers on roads in the Republic of South Africa. The National Road Traffic Act has specific regulations pertaining to cycling safety and every cyclist should be alert to these regulations. Regulation 3113 states as follows:

  1. No person shall ride a pedal cycle on a public road unless he or she is seated astride on the saddle of such pedal cycle.
  2. Persons riding pedal cycles on a public road shall ride in single file except in the course of overtaking another pedal cycle, and two or more persons riding pedal cycles shall not overtake another vehicle at the same time.
  3. No person riding or seated on a pedal cycle on a public road shall take hold of any other vehicle in motion.
  4. No person riding a pedal cycle on a public road shall deliberately cause such pedal cycle to swerve from side to side.
  5. No person riding a pedal cycle on a public road shall carry thereon any person, animal or object which obstructs his or her view or which prevents him or her from exercising complete control over the movements of such pedal cycle.
  6. A person riding a pedal cycle on a public road shall do so with at least one hand on the handle bars of such pedal cycle.
  7. Whenever a portion of a public road has been set aside for use by persons riding pedal cycles, no person shall ride a pedal cycle on any other portion of such road.
  8. A person riding a pedal cycle on a public road or a portion of a public road set aside for use by persons riding pedal cycles, shall do so in such manner that all the wheels of such pedal cycle are in contact with the surface of the road at all times.

The Western Cape Provincial Road Traffic Act was passed on the 29th November 2012 and this Act has implications for both pedal cyclists and motor vehicle drivers. The Act empowers the Provincial Minister of Transport to regulate4 certain matters to increase road safety in the Province. Amongst others, regulations requiring all vehicles overtaking cyclists to ensure that there is a safe distance of at least 1.5 metres between them before passing, and law enforcement actions against cyclists who do not ride in single file, or who fail to stop at red traffic lights or stop streets were enacted.

Cyclists have the right to expect motor vehicles to overtake them safely and be on the look-out for them at intersections. The Road Traffic Act is clear where it states that drivers must take other road users into account in whatever they do. Cyclists also have the right to the left-hand side of the road (not the extreme edge of the left-hand side). We tend to forget that there are cyclists around us who are also using the roads as a means of transport. Apart from the recently built cycle-lanes in Cape Town, we do not have dedicated lanes in South Africa for cyclists to use. This means that every day cyclists are fighting for road space amongst often aggressive and ignorant drivers, according to the Automobile Association of South Africa (AA).

While the law states that cyclists must wear protective headgear while riding a bicycle, for many this is a cost that they simply cannot afford, making them almost invisible to the drivers on the road.

Therefore, as a driver, ask yourself what you can do to avoid colliding with a cyclist. The AA provides some safety tips for drivers:

  • Yield to cyclists, especially at intersections and circles.

__________________

4 Dec 6, 2013 – Province Western Cape: Provincial Gazette 7208.

  • Check your blind spots and make sure the way is clear before changing lanes or direction.
  • Do not drive, stop or park in a bicycle lane.
  • Give cyclists enough room when overtaking – at least 1.5 metres.

Changing the behaviour of drivers will assist in the fight to stop cyclist crashes and deaths on our roads. However, cyclists also have to do their part by following the rules and making sure they are visible. Here are some safety tips for cyclists on the road:

  • Obey the traffic signs and rules.
  • Keep left and keep at least one metre clear of the pavement and parked cars.
  • Ride with the traffic and not against it.
  • Be visible – wear reflective clothing and a bright-coloured helmet at all times.
  • Use lights at night – a white headlight and a red rear lamp.
  • Use hand signals when turning or changing lanes.
  • Always cycle in single file.

In order to reduce the level of carnage on our roads we need to work together as road users, and this means that both cyclists and drivers need to follow the rules. The first step in doing this is to become aware of the rules and regulations in place to protect and serve the interests of both groups of road users.

Bibliography:

  1. www.aa.co.za
  2. www.arrivealive.co.za
  3. www.acts.co.za/national-road-traffic-act-1996
  4. www.polity.org.za

[1] 93 of 1996
[2] 6 of 2012

3 National Road Traffic Regulations, 2000. Government notice R225 in Government Gazette 20963, dated 17 March 2000. Effective as from 1 August 2000 (page 340/389).

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

ANNULMENT OF A MARRIAGE

Consent is an essential element of a valid marriage and the parties to a marriage must confirm before the marriage officer during a civil ceremony that they voluntarily consent to marry each other.[1] There are certain circumstances where it can be said that consensus was not present, and this will be discussed below.

Six months after John marries Laura they decide that they want to start a family. John finds out from the doctors that he is sterile and cannot have children. Laura is distraught and contacts her attorney, saying that she would never have married John if she had known that he could not have children.

Laura’s attorney explains to her the circumstances in which consensus will either be lacking or materially deficient, in which case the marriage can be annulled (set aside).

Firstly, a material mistake will result in a lack of consensus. A material mistake is limited to where there is a mistake as to the identity of your spouse or a mistake regarding the actual act of marriage in that you did not understand that the ceremony in which you took part resulted in marriage with the other party. In these circumstances there is uncertainty as to whether the marriage never came into existence or if it can be set aside. One may also make mistakes regarding the personal characteristics of your spouse. This may only be a ground on which the validity of the marriage can be challenged if these are material characteristics. The decision whether a mistake regarding a personal characteristic is material or not rests with the Court.[2]

Secondly, a misrepresentation by your spouse may justify the setting aside of a marriage if that misrepresentation relates to a material aspect of the marriage. In the scenario above, if John was aware of the fact that he was sterile before entering into the marriage with Laura, then Laura could attempt to prove that she was misled and state that if she was aware of John’s sterility, she would never have married him. However, if John was unaware that he was sterile, this is not a sufficient ground on which to set a marriage aside.[3]

Thirdly, if one of the parties was unduly influenced or placed under duress to marry the other party by any person including but not limited to the party to which they have been married, then there is no consensus and the marriage can be set aside.[4]

Fourthly, impotence, being the inability to have sexual intercourse, may be a valid ground for setting aside a marriage, but this will not be so if it was reasonably foreseeable at the time that the marriage was entered into that sexual intercourse wouldn’t take place based on factors such as age or illness.[5]

Fifthly, if the scenario above was altered to read that Laura was pregnant with another man’s baby at the time that she married John then he could apply to have the marriage set aside on the basis that this state of affairs would most likely result in an unhappy marriage. He may only make this application if he was unaware of the pregnancy at the time that they were married and if he has not waived his right to have the marriage annulled.[6]

Bibliography:

  • Robinson JA, Human S, Boshoff A, Smith BS, Carnelley M, Introduction to South African Family Law, 4th ed., 2009, 92 – 94.
  • Heaton J, South African Family Law 3rd ed., 2010, 37.
  • Marriage Act, 25 of 1961.

[1] Section 30(1) of the Marriage Act, 25 of 1961.

[2] Robinson JA, Human S, Boshoff A, Smith BS, Carnelley M, Introduction to South African Family Law, 4th ed. (2009) 92.

[3] Robinson JA, Introduction to South African Family Law, 4th ed. (2009) 93.

[4] Robinson JA, Introduction to South African Family Law, 4th ed. (2009) 93.

[5] Heaton J, South African Family Law, 3rd ed. (2010) 38; Robinson JA, Introduction to South African Family Law, 4th ed. (2009) 94.

[6] Heaton J, South African Family Law 3rd ed. (2010) 37; Robinson JA, Introduction to South African Family Law, 4th ed. (2009) 94.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

DIE GEMENEREGHUWELIK IN SUID-AFRIKA

Daar is geen gemenereghuwelik in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg nie. Mense glo dat deur vir ‘n aaneenlopende tydperk saam met iemand anders te woon, regte en verpligtinge tussen hulle gevestig word. Hierdie misverstand kom veral voor by jong volwassenes.

Die enigste manier om onder ons reg beskerming te geniet is deur ‘n universele vennootskapooreenkoms tussen die twee partye te sluit. So ‘n ooreenkoms gee duidelikheid oor die regte en verpligtinge van die partye. Hierdie ooreenkoms sal bepaal wat met die eiendom en bates van die partye gaan gebeur as hulle besluit om uitmekaar te gaan.  Hierdie universele vennootskapooreenkoms tussen die partye is nie afdwingbaar teenoor derdes nie. Slegs ‘n geldige huwelik is afdwingbaar teenoor derdes. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat vennote soms gesamentlik en afsonderlik aanspreeklik gehou kan word as hulle binne die bestek van die vennootskap optree. ‘n Ooreenkoms soos hierdie sal regtens bindend wees solank die bepalings nie immoreel of onwettig is nie. Sou daar geen ooreenkoms wees oor die ontbinding van ‘n universele vennootskapooreenkoms nie sal ‘n party slegs geregtig wees op die behoud van die bates wat hy of sy gekoop het en besit en sal hy of sy voorts geregtig wees daarop om proporsioneel die bates te deel volgens die bydrae wat elk tot die vennootskap gemaak het.

Om te bewys dat so ‘n ooreenkoms bestaan sal die partye die volgende moet kan aantoon:

  • Die doel van die vennootskap was om wins te maak.
  • Albei partye moes bygedra het tot die vennootskap.
  • Die bepalings moet tot voordeel wees van albei partye.
  • Die bepalings in die kontrak moet nie onregmatig wees nie.
  • Daar moet geldige wilsooreenstemming wees.
  • Daar is ‘n wedersydse voorneme om ‘n regtens geldige ooreenkoms te skep.

Waar daar geen uitdruklike ooreenkoms bestaan nie mag daar wel ‘n stilswyende ooreenkoms wees. So ‘n stilswyende ooreenkoms kan afgelei word as bevind word dat dit waarskynlik is dat sodanige ooreenkoms tussen die partye bereik is ten tye van hul saamwonery.

Omdat die bestaan van ‘n universele vennootskap moeilik is om te bewys is dit raadsaam om ‘n kontrak aan te gaan waarin uiteengesit word hoe daar met eiendom te werk gegaan moet word as die verhouding weens dood of om ‘n ander rede beëindig word. So ‘n kontrak sal ‘n mate van sekerheid vir die saamwoners skep oor die verdeling van bates en die afrekening van verpligtinge by beëindiging van die verhouding.

Sommige gevolge van ‘n verhouding waar daar nie ‘n geldige verbintenis tussen die partye bestaan nie, is:

  • Geen wedersydse verpligting om onderhoud te betaal nie.
  • Geen vrystelling van skenkingsbelasting in die geval van skenkings aan mekaar nie.
  • Geen voordeel ingevolge erfreg as een party intestaat sterf nie.
  • Geen reg op eiendom of bates van die saamwonende nie.
  • Geen wedersydse verpligting om by te dra tot huishoudelike noodsaaklikhede  nie.

Die ‘Domestic Partnership Bill’ van 2008 is steeds in sy formuleringstadium en daar sal gesien moet word hoe dit geïmplementeer word. In die huidige grondwetlike bedeling is dit onwaarskynlik dat ‘n vennoot in wanhoop gedompel sal word as die ‘Domestic Partnership Bill’ in berekening gebring word.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

BE ACQUAINTED WITH THE LAW RELATING TO LABELLING AND ADVERTISING

What is in a label or advert?

Labelling is the transmission of information via letters, figures and artistic characters. Advertising goes a step further as it engages in visual and/or oral creations to endorse or to promote the sale of goods or services through various mediums.

Why is this definitional component of marketing and consumer / business outreach important?

Our laws, in an attempt to protect us against unfair labelling and advertising, require factual and honest labelling and advertising. This principle, which requires honesty in advertising, calls for factual claims and disallows misleading claims, is encoded in the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Code of Conduct. The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) reinforces this requirement of disclosure of all relevant information and further requires that such disclosure must be in plain language.

Preventing or minimising exposure to legal claims for unfair labelling and advertising

  • Have a proper internal advertising standards protocol. This protocol should set out the legal guidelines for all advertisements in whatever format or media, whether they are above the line or below the line, or for public relations releases;
  • Ensure that marketing panels and public relations teams are correctly trained on this protocol. Once trained, continue to ensure compliance as they are generally the teams that are involved in the crafting or supporting of advertisements or releases. At the same time make sure your external advertising and public relations agency is fully compliant and conscious of the laws relating to your specific market;
  • Take care to ensure that all advertisements, public relations releases and labels are reviewed by internal counsel and by external counsel before release or publication.

Adherence to the above guidelines will:

  • ensure factual and legal review and minimise potential CPA claims, as well as minimise ASA review and potential penalties;
  • counter trademark infringement and identify any unauthorised use;
  • prevent false marking if an advert or product affixes the word “patent” to an unpatentable item;
  • prevent both unfair comparative labelling and advertising that promotes your product as superior to your competitors’ without a factual and objective basis.

We recommend that an advertising register be maintained. The register will ensure that a sense of control and accountability is reached, as all releases are documented in the register.  By including a provision that all material be sent for legal review to confirm whether they have been reviewed or not, no unacceptable items will slip through.

Knowing the law relating to labelling and advertising in your field could save you endless headaches, unnecessary litigation, and money.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.