B Lubbe & Associates Attorneys B Lubbe - Table View Based Litigation & Divorce Attorneys

“…an employee who gives short notice in violation of the contract … may be obliged to serve out the notice period” (Quoted in the judgment below)

It’s an age-old workplace dodge – threatened with a disciplinary hearing and fearing a guilty verdict, an employee resigns with immediate effect and walks out the door with a defiant “Well that’s it, you just lost your right to discipline me. See you around, loser”.

No longer! Our courts have dealt with this issue often in the past in various guises and with conflicting outcomes. Fortunately, a new Labour Appeal Court (LAC) decision has finally settled the matter.

The bank employee and the fraudulent cheque charge

A bank employee was given notice to attend a disciplinary hearing on a charge of misconduct after a R30,000 cheque was cashed without proper procedures being followed (the cheque was later found to have been fraudulent, and the bank lost R30k).
She resigned “with immediate effect”, presumably fearing a guilty verdict and the risk of her name being put onto the Banking Association of South Africa’s REDS (Register for Employees Dishonesty System) database.
The bank however insisted that she serve the four-week notice period in her employment contract and convened a disciplinary enquiry within the notice period.
The employee and her attorney arrived at the enquiry to argue that her immediate resignation had ended the employment relationship and that the enquiry could not therefore continue. When the chairman rejected this argument, she left the enquiry to proceed in her absence.
Found guilty of misconduct and summarily dismissed, the employee approached the Labour Court which agreed that the resignation had terminated the employment. It accordingly ruled the dismissal null and void.
On appeal however the LAC found that the employer had been entitled to enforce the contractual four-week notice provision, that the employment relationship therefore still existed at the time of the hearing, and that the dismissal was accordingly valid.

Employers: Be clear and be quick!

You can choose to enforce the notice period provision, or you can choose to waive it. If you are found to have waived it, the employment relationship will have ended immediately. To avoid any risk of that, make it crystal clear to the employee that you are enforcing the notice period.
Secondly, don’t drag your feet on holding the disciplinary enquiry – you must act before the notice period expires and the employment relationship ends.

What if there is no notice period in your employment contract?

In that case, said the Court, the notice periods in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) would apply –

“(a) one week, if the employee has been employed for six months or less;
(b) two weeks, if the employee has been employed for more than six months but not more than one year;
(c) four weeks, if the employee

(i) has been employed for one year or more; or

(ii) is a farm worker or domestic worker who has been employed for more than six months.”

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

“It is a fundamental principle that no man is allowed to take the law into his own hands” (Transvaal Supreme Court, 1906)

Landlords can be sorely tempted to force defaulting tenants to settle their arrears (or to vacate the premises altogether) with a bit of instant “self-help” by cutting electricity or water supplies, or perhaps by changing locks or disabling access codes.

From the High Court comes another timely warning that you cannot resort to self-help without risking an immediate and costly “spoliation order”.

What exactly is a spoliation order?

In a nutshell, it is an order rapping you over the knuckles for taking the law into your own hands and forcing you to return to the previous status quo whilst you fight your weary way through proper legal channels.

To quote from a 2012 Supreme Court of Appeal decision (emphasis supplied): “Spoliation is the wrongful deprivation of another’s right of possession. The aim of spoliation is to prevent self-help. It seeks to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands … The cause for possession is irrelevant – that is why a thief is protected … The fact that possession is wrongful or illegal is irrelevant, as that would go to the merits of the dispute”.

The two things the tenant must prove

At this stage, the court is not interested in how strong or weak the landlord’s claim may be. Your full-on fight over the “merits of the dispute” comes later, and all the tenant need show now is –

1) That it was in “peaceful and undisturbed” possession, and
2) That it was “unlawfully deprived” of that possession.

The filling station, the laundromat and the “personal rights” argument

A landlord was in a protracted clash with two of its long-standing tenants – a filling station and a laundromat – over disputed electricity arrears totalling some R240k. As often happens, the landlord was on the hook for the arrears, and was, it said, “facing financial ruin”. The leases had been cancelled and High Court litigation over the disputes was pending.
Eventually, by agreement, pre-paid meters were installed. The tenants loaded their first credit tokens but suddenly found themselves unable to top up the meters. It turned out that the landlord had instructed the electricity supplier to load the arrears onto the pre-paid meters, meaning that the tenants would have to pay the disputed arrears before they could buy more electricity.
When the tenants launched an urgent spoliation application, the landlord argued that the tenants’ rights to a supply of electricity were purely “personal rights” in terms of their respective leases. Thus, argued the landlord, spoliation could not apply.
The tenants countered that “the right to access to electricity supply is an incident to the possession of the property from which they conduct their businesses” which would come to a standstill without electricity.
The Court’s analysis of the various legal arguments around the “personal rights v incident of occupation” fight, and over whether our law recognises “quasi-possession” of an “incorporeal” (like electricity) – as opposed to “actual possession” of the property itself – will be of great interest to lawyers. But for landlords and tenants it is the practical outcome that really matters.
Finding that there was an “irresistible inference that the [landlord] effectively cut the electricity (by uploading the arrears on the pre-paid meter) to force the [tenants] to vacate and to avoid having to follow due process to recover the alleged arrears” and that “this is a matter where the interference on the supply of electricity … constituted material interference of the possession of the property itself”, the Court ordered the landlord to immediately (a) restore the tenants’ access to their electricity supply and (b) cancel the negative and arrear balances on their pre-paid meters. An adverse costs order rubs salts into the landlord’s wounds.

The lesson for landlords

No matter how strong your main case may be, taking the law into your own hands is likely to be a costly mistake. Seek legal advice before you take any form of self-help action!

(N.B. The increases highlighted below are extracted from the Employment and Labour Minister’s announcement of 9 February 2021, and emphasis has been supplied where helpful in enabling quick identification of your employment sector. Comment is in square brackets)

“The National Minimum Wage (NMW) for each ordinary hour worked has been increased from R20,76 to R21,69 per hour [a 4.5% increase] for the year 2021 with effect from 1 March 2021.

It is illegal and an unfair labour practice for an employer to unilaterally alter hours of work or other conditions of employment in implementing the NMW. The NMW is the amount payable for the ordinary hours of work and does not include payment of allowances (such as transport, tools, food or accommodation) payments in kind (board or lodging), tips, bonuses and gifts.
Following a transitional phase, the farm worker sector has been aligned with the NMW rate of R21,69 per hour [a 16% increase].
The domestic workers sector will be entitled to R19,09 per hour [a 23% increase] and could be expected to be aligned with the NMW when the next review is considered [i.e. 2022]. [Use the Living Wage calculator to check that you are paying your domestic worker enough to cover a household’s “minimal need”].
In line with the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA), the increase in the NMW will mean that wages prescribed in the sectoral determinations that were higher than the NMW at its promulgation, must be increased proportionally to the adjustment of the national minimum wage. Therefore, the Contract Cleaning; and Wholesale and Retail Sector will also have their wages upwardly adjusted by 4,5 percent.
In another development, the Minister has also, in terms of the BCEA earnings threshold, revised the rate from R205 433.30 to R211 596.30. Chapter 2 of the Act deals with the regulation of working time, limit on the duration of an employee’s working week and to prescribe a rate at which an employee should be paid to work outside normal working hours among others.
Employees that earn in excess of this rate per annum are excluded from sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17(2) and 18(3) of this Act from 01 March 2021. These sections protect vulnerable employees and regulate amongst others, hours of work, overtime, compressed working time, average hours of work, meals interval, daily and weekly rest period, pay for work on Sundays, night work, and work on public holidays.”

Now more than ever before, scenario planning is essential for the success of your business. But of course the next step in the process is just as critical – you need to create an actual business strategy based on your scenario planning. It’s a process that can be both quick and simple.

As the author of “From Scenarios to Strategy: Top 3 Methods” on the Medium website points out, even smaller businesses with limited resources will find the “wind tunneling” method both powerful and flexible.

“7,000 people have already been arrested for not wearing masks and most of them now have criminal records” (Police Minister Bheki Cele in mid-January)

We all know that wearing a face mask is the right and the safe thing to do, but it is also a legal requirement – and it’s one that you really don’t want to breach.

Firstly, can you be arrested for not wearing a mask?

The short answer is yes, the amended Disaster Management Act Regulations providing that –

Everyone (except children under six) must always wear a face mask (covering nose as well as mouth!) when in a public place.
It is a criminal offence not to comply with a verbal instruction to wear a face mask by an “enforcement officer” (defined to include SAPS and SANDF members, “peace officers” such as magistrates, Justices of the Peace, correctional services officers, municipal law enforcement officers and other designated officials). There are also reports of arrests without such an instruction being given beforehand, and as the police appear to be using their interpretation of the Regulations to conduct these “arrests without warning”, rather be safe than sorry – assume that if you have no mask you risk immediate arrest and prosecution.
You are liable on conviction to “a fine or a period of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.”
You need not wear a mask while undertaking “vigorous exercise” (not defined in the Regulations but presumably including fast running, cycling and the like – err on the side of caution here) provided that you continually maintain a distance of one and a half meters from any other person.

You could end up with a criminal record, and that’s real trouble

You can of course elect to go to court to fight the charge, but often you will also be given the alternative of paying an “admission of guilt” fine.

It will be a tempting offer at the time but be careful – paying a fine is one thing but if you end up with a criminal record (an entry in the SAPS Criminal Record Centre database) you will regret it. Imagine for example a scenario where you apply for a job, or a travel visa, or a firearms licence, or for credit (such as a home loan). And suddenly up pops your long-forgotten criminal record, a nasty surprise at the worst possible time.

Plans to change the law so that only some admission of guilt fines will result in a criminal record have so far come to nought. So as the law stands you will end up with a “deemed” conviction and sentence – and thus a record – if you are arrested and your fingerprints are taken. Which is exactly what the Minister says will happen to you.

And once you have a criminal record, it’s not at all easy to get rid of it.

Three ways you can try to remove your criminal record

Firstly, you can apply for “expungement” of the record to remove it from the CRC database, but that option is only available to you after 10 years and for certain “minor offences”. It will also 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.
Secondly, you could ask a court to set aside your conviction and sentence – costly, not an immediate fix, and not guaranteed to succeed.
Thirdly, you could hope that planned amendments to our criminal procedure laws will retrospectively come to your aid – speculative for now.

The bottom line – wear your mask, and don’t admit guilt without legal advice!

“…a third party is expected to do more than rely upon a bold assurance by another party regarding his or her marital status” (quoted in judgment below)

If you are taking advantage of our current low interest rates and reduced selling prices to buy a property, make sure that you establish the seller’s marital status with something more than what the seller tells you.

Your risk comes in if the seller is married in community of property. That’s because, whilst our law generally allows spouses in such a marriage to “perform any juristic act with regard to the joint estate without the consent of the other spouse”, there are exceptions.

And one exception relates to immovable property. A spouse needs the written consent of the other to sell, mortgage or burden the property (by granting a servitude over it for example). Without that written consent the transaction is void, unlawful and unenforceable.

Which is where the danger comes in. Consider this scenario – you pay for and take transfer of a property from a seller who you think is unmarried, but a spouse suddenly appears and says “I never consented to that sale so it’s void. The transfer to you is cancelled so out you go and good luck getting your money back”. What now?

Competing rights and a balancing act

There is of course a fine balancing act for courts involved here – on the one hand, the rights of the non-consenting spouse and on the other hand your rights as a good-faith buyer from a seller who you believed to be unmarried.

A recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment addressed exactly that situation.

“But I thought I was buying from an unmarried seller”

A husband married in community of property sold and transferred a house to a buyer in 2009. At the time, his wife was not living in the house, having moved to another part of the country due to old age.
When the seller passed away in 2013 his wife was appointed executrix of his deceased estate. Some four years later she successfully applied to the High Court for cancellation of the deed of transfer on the basis that the sale had been without her knowledge or consent.
The buyer appealed to the SCA on the basis that the wife’s consent to the sale should be “deemed” to have been given in that the relevant legislation provides for such deemed consent where a buyer “does not know and cannot reasonably know that the transaction is being entered into contrary to [the requirement for written consent]”.
He had, said the buyer, acted bona fide (in good faith) as he had not known of the marriage: “At the time I purchased the property from the deceased/seller, he was staying alone in the said property and he also confirmed to me that he was not married. He signed the deed of sale and also the transfer documents alone as unmarried.”

What the buyer must prove

The buyer had to prove that he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that consent was needed but lacking.

What the Court here needed to decide was whether the buyer should at the time of the sale have known of the marriage and the lack of written consent. “A duty is cast on a party seeking to rely on the deemed consent provision” held the Court “… to make the enquiries that a reasonable person would make in the circumstances as to whether the other contracting party is married, if so, in terms of which marriage regime, whether the consent of the non-contracting spouse is required and, if so, whether it has been given.”

Finding that the buyer had indeed proved (1) that he did not know that the deceased was married and (2) that he could not reasonably have known this, the SCA allowed the appeal and the transfer to the buyer stands on the basis of deemed consent by the spouse.

The facts of each case will be different, and it is important to bear in mind that in this particular matter the husband’s claim to be unmarried was supported not only by the absence of any sign of a wife but also by two official documents – the deed of transfer and the power of attorney to pass transfer.

The bottom line is that as buyer you must make “reasonable enquiries” as to the seller’s marital status and as to whether the other spouse’s written consent to the sale is needed.

“No matter how much you’ve been warned, Death always comes without knocking” (Margaret Atwood)

No one wants to contemplate their own passing, but the reality is that sooner or later it is inevitable, and particularly in these dangerous times we need always to be prepared.

The loss of a loved one is always distressing. It can however be compounded by the challenge of dealing with their assets.

Few people appreciate all the costs involved in settling an estate. Understanding these expenses and planning for how to deal with them can make a big difference to those left behind.

Executor’s fees and costs

Every estate must be wound up by an executor. Ensure that in your will you nominate an executor you can trust to act with integrity, professionalism and speed.

An executor can charge a maximum fee of 3.5% plus VAT. That equals 4.025% of the value of the estate. Depending on the size and complexity of your estate this fee may be negotiable.

The executor will also incur costs such as advertising to find any outstanding creditors, bank charges, accounting fees, conveyancing on the transfer of property and paying the fees due to the Master of the High Court. Together, these could run into tens of thousands of rands.

Taxes and estate duties

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) levies 20% estate duty on the value of any estate, but there is no estate duty payable on an estate with a net value below the R3.5 million abatement (allowable deduction). Any amount above R30 million will be taxed at 25%. An estate worth R40 million will therefore have to pay estate duties of R7.8 million (R5.3 million on the first R30 million, after the R3.5 million abatement, and R2.5 million on the next R10 million).

These taxes will not, however, be paid on any assets left to a surviving spouse. In that case they effectively ‘roll-over’ and will only be charged upon the spouse’s death.

The estate will also have to pay capital gains tax on any assets that are sold. SARS will also conduct a final income tax assessment.

In addition, South Africans need to consider that if they have assets in other parts of the world, they may be liable to pay estate taxes in those countries as well. There are double taxation agreements in place with many countries that prevent most assets from being taxed twice, but where taxes elsewhere are higher than in South Africa, the estate will still have to pay the difference. Inheritance tax in the UK, for instance, is 40%.

Outstanding debt

The estate will have to settle any debt such as credit cards, loans, or bonds on property. Interest on these debts does not stop accruing when someone passes away, so it is best to deal with them as early as possible.

It is most critical to consider how to handle home loans, especially if they are held over a property in which surviving family members are still living. Sometimes these individuals may not qualify to take over the bond due to their own financial position, which means that the house may have to be sold if the debt can’t be settled.

Being prepared – check what cash the estate will have

Even though an estate may have sufficient assets to meet all of these expenses, it can still be a problem if it doesn’t have enough available cash. That is because the executor may have to sell assets to free up money.

This not only leads to potential extra costs and taxes but can be traumatic if something like a house where a loved one is living or a car that someone needs for transport has to be disposed of. This is why it is important to prepare an estate to make sure that there is enough cash available.

One way of doing this is to take out a life insurance policy that will pay cash into the estate. This will ensure that your family members aren’t left with a potentially major financial burden and face additional stress after your death.

The above is of necessity just a summary of the cost considerations involved, so speak to your attorney about how your will and estate are structured and how you can plan to meet all the costs.

“Pyrrhic victory”, n. A very costly victory, wherein the considerable losses outweigh the gain, so as to render the struggle not worth the cost (Wiktionary)

With our economic woes unlikely to abate any time soon, expect an increasing number of your debtors to find themselves in financial difficulty. If you end up litigating against any of them the last thing you will want to do is to throw good money after bad.

And whilst fighting a court case and winning against a recalcitrant debtor is all very well, it’s a hollow victory if by the time you come to enforce your judgment the debtor has no assets left to execute against. You may have won the battle, but you’ll have lost the war. You’ll be left with nothing but a large legal bill and a very sour taste in your mouth.

So what can you do if, during the litigation, you realise that the court case is nothing but a delaying tactic to give the debtor time to dispose of or hide assets? Or perhaps the debtor genuinely thinks it has a valid defence to your claim but decides to get rid of assets just in case it loses. Either way, you risk having no assets left to execute against if you eventually win.

Fortunately our law has an effective remedy for you in the form of an “anti-dissipation interdict” (sometimes referred to as a “Mareva Injunction” which is a similar English remedy). Its effect is to freeze, until your case is finalised, enough of your debtor’s assets to satisfy any judgment in your favour.

A R230m case illustrates what you must prove

A plaintiff suing in the High Court for R230m plus interest and costs became aware through media reports of a potential dissipation of the defendant’s assets in the form of a corporate unbundling exercise.
It obtained an order that the defendant provide security of R430m and when this security was not forthcoming the plaintiff applied for an anti-dissipation interdict.
The Court set out what you must prove thus –
- That the defendant “is dissipating assets or hiding assets”.
- That “there is reason to believe that such dissipation or hiding of assets is taking place mala fide [in bad faith] with the intention of defeating [your] claims”.
- In addition you “must satisfy the Court that all the other requirements for the granting of an interim interdict have been established.” These other requirements, as set out in many other cases, are proof of –
- A prima facie (“at first view”) right, even if it is subject to some doubt,
- A reasonable apprehension of irreparable and imminent harm to the right if an interdict is not granted,
- The balance of convenience must favour the granting of the interdict, and
- You must have no other remedy.
Finding on the facts that the defendant (a company) was indeed disposing of its assets and would be left as only an empty shell after doing so, and that it was acting in bad faith and “with the view to frustrate the [plaintiff’s] claims and to render its victory in the pending action pyrrhic”, the Court granted the interdict.

“If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail” (Benjamin Franklin)

We have all been battered by the economic fallout from the lockdowns. Now more than ever before we should pro-actively take control of and manage our finances through the crisis. A personal financial plan is key here. Without a plan we will drift aimlessly through 2021’s uncharted and perilous waters – a recipe for disaster.

Fortunately putting together a workable plan is not rocket science, and there are many online resources to help. See for example Business Maverick’s article “Your practical 2021 financial year planner” here – a simple and useful guide to tackling your personal finances month-by-month.

“Home, Sweet Home”

2021 is shaping up to be a busy year for both property sales and home builders, thanks in no small measure to the pandemic-induced concept of “work from home, live anywhere”.

If you are one of the many landowners about to invite a team of contractors onto your property to build your new dream home, or holiday house, or perhaps a house-to-let on an investment property, remember to check for full compliance with the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act. It offers you, as the “housing consumer”, significant protection against dishonest contractors and faulty workmanship, plus access to its mediation services should any dispute arise. Your home is probably one of your more significant assets so it will be time well spent.

On the other side of the coin, any building contractor or property developer not complying with the Act risks both criminal prosecution (with a penalty of up to a R25,000 fine or a year’s jail time) and loss of all rights to claim payment from your client. You could, in other words, lose everything – as a recent High Court judgment shows…

High Court: Builder registration is not enough

For the builder, first step is registration with the NHBRC (National Home Builders Registration Council), but a recent High Court decision confirms that there is also a vital second step – enrolment of the house itself. Note that the NHBRC certificate of enrolment must be issued before construction starts.

The facts were these –

A builder (a close corporation) contracted to build five homes for a housing consumer. The builder had been duly registered with the NHBRC.
But, as it was involved in a dispute with the NHBRC, the builder did not itself enrol the homes. They were registered under the name of another entity.
The builder however carried out the work itself, and in due course it sued the housing consumer for R1.1m.
The builder lost, the Court holding that because of non-compliance with the registration requirements, it was “not entitled to claim compensation or payment for services rendered.”
The end result – the builder (both the close corporation and its members) leaves with nothing. Except of course a doubtless substantial legal bill and the risk of prosecution for giving false or misleading information to the NHBRC.

Before you build…

Make sure your builder is registered with the NHBRC and get a copy of the registration certificate – check that it is not expired. Go to www.nhbrc.org.za, call the NHBRC on 0800 200 824 or email it at nhbrc@nhbrc.org.za. Note that if you are an “owner builder” you may be exempt.
You must have the NHBRC “certificate of proof of enrolment” of the house before any construction starts (you will need it anyway to get a bond for new house construction).
Check that you are dealing with an experienced and reliable builder by asking for at least three recent client references, visit any active building sites to check quality of construction and materials for yourself, check with the NHBRC for the total number of houses enrolled by the builder and for any complaints lodged (check also on online consumer complaint sites for any negative or positive reports).
Sign a full written contract with the builder, but only after your lawyer has checked it for you. Look for things like timelines, detailed building specs and plans, compliance with NHBRC technical requirements and its Home Building Manual, warranties given, deposits payable, agreed progress payments and the like.
Make sure that all necessary municipal requirements have been met and that building plans have been approved.
Keep your neighbours in the loop every step of the way – there is nothing like clear and open communication to nip any unhappiness or problems in the bud!

The bank employee and the fraudulent cheque charge

Employers: Be clear and be quick!

What if there is no notice period in your employment contract?

What exactly is a spoliation order?

The two things the tenant must prove

The filling station, the laundromat and the “personal rights” argument

The lesson for landlords

Firstly, can you be arrested for not wearing a mask?

You could end up with a criminal record, and that’s real trouble

Three ways you can try to remove your criminal record

Competing rights and a balancing act

“But I thought I was buying from an unmarried seller”

What the buyer must prove

Executor’s fees and costs

Taxes and estate duties

Outstanding debt

Being prepared – check what cash the estate will have

A R230m case illustrates what you must prove

High Court: Builder registration is not enough

Before you build…

Contact Us

ADDRESS

POPIA

The bank employee and the fraudulent cheque charge

Employers: Be clear and be quick!

What if there is no notice period in your employment contract?

What exactly is a spoliation order?

The two things the tenant must prove

The filling station, the laundromat and the “personal rights” argument

The lesson for landlords

Firstly, can you be arrested for not wearing a mask?

You could end up with a criminal record, and that’s real trouble

Three ways you can try to remove your criminal record

Competing rights and a balancing act

“But I thought I was buying from an unmarried seller”

What the buyer must prove

Executor’s fees and costs

Taxes and estate duties

Outstanding debt

Being prepared – check what cash the estate will have

A R230m case illustrates what you must prove

High Court: Builder registration is not enough

Before you build…

Contact Us

ADDRESS

POPIA

Cookies Disclaimer