Department of Land Affairs

1
Department of Land Affairs Presentation to
the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture Land
Affairs The Departments Position on Comments
received by the Portfolio Committee on
the SECTIONAL TITLES AMENDMENT BILL 2005 B10
2005  Presentation by Chief Registrar of
Deeds Sam Lefafa

2
1. Peter Nathan (Sectional Title Services) / NAMA

• COMMENT/CONTENTION (Clause 4 of Bill)
• S.27(6) should be amended so as to allow the
  registerable contracts of leases, usufruct, usus
  or habitatio, to be limited to owners of sections
  in the scheme
• The owner of rights of exclusive use is capable
  of entering into contracts with persons who are
  not owners of sections in a scheme
• This has the potential danger of introducing into
  the body corporate any number of persons to the
  possible detriment of the other owners of
  sections in the scheme.

3
1.Peter Nathan (Sectional Title Services) / NAMA

• DLA POSITION
• The Department does not agree
• Recommends that the clause as tabled be adopted

4
1.Peter Nathan (Sectional Title Services) / NAMA

• DLA MOTIVATION/REASONS
• Proposal would unjustifiably limit limited
  sectional titles owners property rights. For
  example, the owner would be able to lease a
  section to a non-owner but not the exclusive use
  area (e.g. a garage) that is linked to that
  section
• Owners should have the freedom to deal with their
  rights with minimum and not unreasonable
  restrictions
• Proposal appears to achieve unjustifiable degree
  of control by co-owners, and scheme
  administrators/managing agents.

5
1.Peter Nathan (Sectional Title Services)

• COMMENT/CONTENTION (Clause 5 of Bill)
• In the event of a prosecution taking
• place which Court will have
• jurisdiction?
• MOTIVATION/REASONS
• In the definition section of the Act the High
  Court and the Magistrates Court are empowered to
  deal with civil matters.

6
1.Peter Nathan (Sectional Title Services)

• DLA POSITION  
• The Department does not agree with the proposal
  and
• recommends that the clause as tabled be adopted.
• DLA MOTIVATION/REASONS
• It is acknowledged that the definition in the Act
  deals only with civil jurisdiction but
• Criminal jurisdiction is regulated by the
  criminal justice system, and a District
  Magistrates Court currently has jurisdiction for
  this class of offence.

7
2. Council for the Built Environment

• COMMENT
• We have not been consulted by the DLA on the
  above-mentioned Bill.
• They also request information regarding the place
  where the Bill is published.
• DLA POSITION
• The Department has now provided CBE with a copy
  of the Bill and requested their comments.

8
3. Banking Association of South Africa

• COMMENT
• The Association fully supports the Bill.

9
4. Thubelisha Homes

• COMMENT
• They have no comment.

10
5. South African Property Owners Association

• COMMENT/CONTENTION (Clause 5 of Bill)
• Unable to give comment before 18 May 2005
• Requested extension to 31 May 2005
• However, do not believe that imprisonment would
  satisfy the objective
• Propose that a financial penalty be imposed on
  the developer instead of imprisonment.

11
5. South African Property Owners Association

• DLA POSITION
• The extension of the closing date is out of the
  Departments hands
• A fine alone cannot induce the developers to
  comply with the provisions of section 36(7)(a)
• This is the reason why an alternative of
  imprisonment is now being introduced.

12
6. South African Local Government Association

• COMMENT/CONTENTION
• SALGA is of the opinion that the amendment Bill
  does not have material implications for Local
  Government and as such
• SALGA has no comments on the Bill.

13
7. National House of Traditional Leaders

• COMMENT/CONTENTION
• Due to the complexity of the Sectional Titles Act
  in general, the NHTL requested a workshop with
  the Department in order to have a better
  understanding of the Act
• NHTL suggested that the process of amendment be
  proceeded with.

14
7. National House of Traditional Leaders

• DLA POSITION
• The Office of the Chief Registrar of Deeds and
  the relevant officials of the NHTL have already
  arranged a date for the workshop.

15
8. Graham Paddock and Associates / Voyager
Property Management (Pty) Ltd.

• COMMENT/CONTENTION
• Suggested that Clause 6 of the Bill should be
  abandoned or amended to read as follows 
• Provided that any member who has paid the
  contributions due by him or her in terms of
  section 37(1) to the body corporate in respect of
  the same debt prior to the judgment against the
  body corporate, may not be joined as a joint
  judgment debtor in respect of the judgment debt.

16
8. Graham Paddock and Associates / Voyager
Property Management (Pty) Ltd.

• MOTIVATION/REASON
• Clause 6 assumes that a creditor will be able to
  recover a debt from the body corporate, when it
  may in fact have no reserves or have made
  insufficient provision for a specific debt
• The current wording of the proposed amendment
  does not protect owners who had paid their levies
  prior to the judgment from losing their units.

17
8. Graham Paddock and Associates / Voyager
Property Management (Pty) Ltd.

• DLA POSITION  
• The Department does not agree with the proposal
  that the clause be abandoned and
• Recommends that the clause as tabled be amended
  as proposed in the comment.

18
8. Graham Paddock and Associates/ Voyager
Property Management (Pty) Ltd.

• DLA MOTIVATION/REASONS 
• The Department is of the opinion that the clause
  as amended would provide sufficient protection
  for owners who have paid their levies in respect
  of a specific debt
• To the extent that a body corporate cannot pay a
  dept, a creditor would as law and equity
  require recover the debt pro rata only from an
  owner who has not contributed towards the
  specific debt, but not from an owner who has so
  contributed.

19
WE THANK YOU!