Uncategorized | JoubertScholtz
Debt does not last forever, after a period of time it prescribes and becomes invalid. Prescribed debt can be explained as old debt that has not been acknowledged over a period of three years. This means that a debt prescribes if:
You have not acknowledged the debt in the past three consecutive years, either in writing or verbally.
You have not made a payment promised to make a payment to the outstanding debt amount.
You have not been summoned to make a payment by a creditor for the debt within the past three consecutive years.
Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Limited v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Limited
On 5 September 2017, the Constitutional Court handed down a judgment in an appeal against the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) against Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd (Trinity). The SCA ruled that Trinity’s claim for repayment of a debt of some R4.55 million against Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd (Grindstone) was unenforceable because it had prescribed.
The parties entered into a written loan agreement, effective from 1 September 2007, in terms of which Grindstone borrowed a capital amount of R3 050 000 (loan capital) from Trinity. Clause 2.3 of the loan agreement provided that the loan capital was due and repayable to the applicant within 30 days from the date of delivery of Trinity’s written demand.
The majority judgment found that, on a holistic reading of the loan agreement, the parties did not intend to delay when the debt would become due or when prescription would begin to run. The parties’ language in the contract did not signify an intention to delay. The parties simply meant to allow Grindstone 30 days to repay the debt once Trinity had issued demand, not to postpone the due date of the debt to an indeterminate future date. The debt thus became due, and prescription began to run, immediately on conclusion of the contract.
Grindstone therefore raised a valid prescription defence, and the appeal was dismissed.
If you are uncertain about a debt amount or require assistance in this regard, then please contact your financial advisor, who will assist you with taking the next steps.
Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Limited v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Limited (CCCT248/16)  ZACC 32 (5 September 2017)
This entry was posted in Debt, Uncategorized and tagged Debt, old debt, Prescription on December 12, 2017 by Toksentjops.
Who are occupiers in terms of the EST Act and why are they excluded from the ambit of the PIE Act?
The Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (“PIE Act”) provides, inter alia, the procedures for the eviction of unlawful occupiers. Section 1 of the PIE Act defines an “unlawful occupier” as someone who occupies land without the express or tacit consent of the owner or person in charge or without any other right in law to occupy such land. This definition expressly excludes a person who is an occupier in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (“EST Act”). Section 29 (2) of the EST Act states that the provisions of the PIE Act shall not apply to an occupier in respect of land which he is entitled to occupy in terms of this Act. Who are occupiers in terms of the EST Act and why are they excluded from the ambit of The PIE Act?
The EST Act has as its aim the provision of measures to facilitate long-term secured land tenure with state assistance. This Act grants occupiers the right to obtain a secured long-term right to occupancy with the permission of the owner, upon request on or after 4 February 1997.
Occupiers of rural land, farms and undeveloped land are specifically protected under this Act. The EST Act does not apply to, inter alia, occupiers living in already proclaimed township areas, land invaders, labour tenants and people using land for mining and industrial purposes and for commercial farming purposes. Occupiers in terms of the EST Act receive a secured right in law to live on and use the land they have been occupying, under permission, for continued periods of time. The occupier thus enjoys protection of this right and as a result such a secured right may not be unreasonably altered or cancelled by the owner or person in charge of the land without notice to, and the permission and/or consent of, the occupier. This includes protection against unfair or arbitrary eviction and, in fact, provides its own specific mechanisms for the eviction of long-term secured occupants, which must be followed.
Actions such as the removal of a right to occupancy, access to the land, water or electricity, denial of family or visitors on the said land and the prohibition of the use of the land for personal reasons are all forms of evictions in terms of the EST Act and are strictly regulated by this Act when applicable to occupiers classified under and granted rights in terms of this Act.
Many occupiers of land who do so with the proper and necessary consent and permission of the owner are not aware that they possess tenure rights to occupy such land on a long-term basis. Unless such an occupier commits a serious wrong or fails to honour any terms of the agreement with the owner, he/she may not be arbitrarily evicted in terms of any eviction process available to owners, including those available under the PIE Act. Such occupier’s rights are protected and regulated under the EST Act.
Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998; www.sarflii.org/za/legis/consol_act/poiefauoola1998627/ (accessed 11 March 2016);
Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997; www.justice.gov.za/lcc/docs/1997-062.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016);
People Against Suffering Oppression and Poverty, PASSOP, www.passop.co.za/your-rights/housing-rights-esta (accessed 11 March 2016).
This entry was posted in Property, Uncategorized and tagged Eviction, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Unlawful occupier on May 6, 2016 by Toksentjops.
Wanneer verjaar ‘n eis?
Die kwessie rakende die regsaard van ‘n verdedigende eis en of dit aanleiding gee tot skuld wat onderworpe is aan die drie jaar uitwissende verjaringstermyn is verskillend hanteer deur verskillende afdelings van die Hoërhof. Op 28 Mei 2015 het die Hooggeregshof tot ‘n finale besluit gekom in Absa Bank v Keet rakende of eise onder die actio rei vindicatio na drie jaar verjaar al dan nie.
Een van die eerste vrae wat u prokureur u sal vra wanneer u met hom konsulteer, is wanneer die skuldoorsaak plaasgevind het, sodat hulle kan vasstel of u eis verjaar het. Indien u eis verjaar het, beteken dit dat daar geen wetlike regstellings meer tot u beskikking is nie. Eise voortspruitend uit skuld verjaar na drie jaar en die reëls van verjaring word in die Verjaringswet van 1969 uiteengesit.
Daar is een spesifieke eis waar die toepassing van die drie jaar verjaringstydperk onseker was en dit was in verband met eise onder die actio rei vindicatio. Dit is ‘n regsaksie waarby die eiser eis dat die verweerder ‘n item wat aan die eiser behoort, teruggee, en dit mag slegs gebruik word indien die eiser die item besit en die verweerder die eiser se besit daarvan belemmer.
‘n Rei vindicatio aksie word dikwels gebruik in dispute rakende paaiementverkope, waar eienaarskap slegs bepaal word deur die betaling van die laaste paaiement of waar paaiemente nie op tyd betaal word nie. Dit gaan meestal hand aan hand met ‘n eis vir kansellasie. Met ander woorde, die verkoper kanselleer die koopooreenkoms en eis teruggawe van die item wat verkoop is.
In die geval van Absa Bank v Keet het die verkoper van ‘n motorvoertuig gepoog om die koopooreenkoms te kanselleer en die teruggawe van die verkoopte voertuig te eis. Die koper van die voertuig het hierop gereageer met ‘n spesiale pleitrede dat die eis vir teruggawe van die voertuig reeds verjaar het.
Die rede vir sy aanspraak dat die eis reeds verjaar het, was dat die ooreenkoms waarop die verkoper gedagvaar het tot ‘n einde sou kom op die datum waarop hy aangevoer het dat die uitstaande bedrag verskuldig en betaalbaar geword het, en dit was meer as drie jaar sedert daardie bedrag verskuldig geword het.
In die geval van Staegemann v Langenhoven is daar beslis dat ‘n verdedigende eis nie na drie jaar verjaar nie. Die Hoërhof in die Keet geval het beslis dat hierdie saak se beslissing foutief was, want indien Staegemann korrek was, “kon die Bank sy aanspraak op die trekker vir nog ‘n dekade en selfs langer terughou, om daarna teruggawe van die voertuig te eis sodat dit sy skadevergoeding kon bereken”.
In die Keet geval moes die Hooggeregshof besluit of die Hoërhof korrek was in sy mening dat die verkoper se eis om teruggawe van sy besitting ‘n “skuld” is, wat vir die doeleindes van die Verjaringswet na drie jaar verjaar.
Die Hooggeregshof het ‘n belangrike onderskeid tussen uitwissende en verkrygende verjaring gemaak ten einde tot ‘n finale besluit te kom. Uitwissende verjaring handel oor ‘n krediteur se reg van optrede teen ‘n skuldenaar, wat ‘n persoonlike reg is. Aan die ander kant handel verkrygende verjaring oor die verkryging van ware regte tot eiendom (in terme van die Verjaringswet kan ‘n persoon eienaarskap van eiendom verkry na 30 jaar van ononderbroke besit). Ware regte is hoofsaaklik gemoeid met die verhouding tussen ‘n persoon en ‘n item, terwyl persoonlike regte gemoeid is met die verhouding tussen twee persone.
Die persoon wat geregtig is op ‘n ware reg oor ‘n item kan, deur middel van verdedigende aksie, daardie item van enige individu eis wat met sy regte inmeng. Sodanige reg is die reg tot eienaarskap. Indien die reg egter nie absoluut is nie, maar slegs relatief tot die item, sodat dit slegs afdwingbaar is teen ‘n gedetermineerde individu of groep individue, is dit ‘n persoonlike reg.
Die Hooggeregshof is daarom van mening dat, om ‘n verdedigende aksie as ‘n “skuld” te oorweeg wat na drie jaar verjaar, teenstrydig is met die skema van die Wet en dat dit die waarde van die onderskeid wat die Verjaringswet tref tussen uitwissende verjaring en verkrygende verjaring ondermyn. Met ander woorde, wat die krediteur verloor as gevolg van die uitvoer van uitwissende verjaring is sy reg tot optrede teen die skuldenaar, wat ‘n persoonlike reg is. Die krediteur verloor nie ‘n reg tot ‘n item nie.
Die Hooggeregshof het dit derhalwe duidelik gemaak dat om die verdedigende aksie gelyk te stel met ‘n “skuld”, dit die onopsetlike en absurde gevolg het dat die skuldenaar, deur middel van uitwissende verjaring, eienaarskap van die krediteur se eiendom verkry na drie jaar in plaas van dertig jaar. Die verdedigende aksie verjaar dus nie na drie jaar nie.
 (817/13)  ZASCA 81 (28 Mei 2015)
 (817/13)  ZASCA 81 (28 Mei 2015)
 Staegemann v Langenhoven & ander 2011 (5) SA 648 (WCC).
 Wessels Law of Contract in South Africa 2de uitgawe vol 1 p 3-4.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Eienaarskap, Eis, Item on March 23, 2016 by Toksentjops.
Real security means that, on the basis of a creditor’s right against the debtor (principal debt), a creditor acquires a limited real right in the property of the debtor as security for the payment of the creditor’s right (principal debt) by the debtor. Real security differs from personal security in that a creditor does not acquire a limited real right in the property of the debtor in the case of personal security, but only acquires a creditor’s right against a third party as security for the payment of the principal debt by the debtor. Such a third party is normally surety of the debtor.
A requirement for real security is the existence of a valid and enforceable principal debt. The real security is accessory to the principal debt, in other words the real security is terminated automatically if the principal debt is paid in full.
If the object of security is moveable property, real security can be in the form of either pledge or notarial bond. In the case of pledge the object of pledge (corporeal or incorporeal moveable property) must be delivered by the pledgor (debtor) to the pledgee (creditor). Physical control of the pledge object is a requirement for the establishment and continuation of a limited real security right to the security object. The pledgee has the obligation to maintain the pledged property within reason and, on termination, to return the property to the pledgor. A notarial bond can be registered in respect of specified, corporeal moveable property of the debtor (mortgagor) in favour of the creditor (mortgagee) in the deeds registry. After registration of this bond, the mortgagee acquires a limited real right to the encumbered property without delivery thereof to the mortgagee.
Immoveable property of the debtor serves as the object of security in that a mortgage is granted by the debtor (mortgagor) to the creditor (mortgagee) and registered in the deeds registry. A mortgage is a liquid document which grants the mortgagee a limited real right in respect of the immoveable property of the mortgagee without the physical control of the property being passed to the mortgagee. More than one mortgage can be registered over the same immoveable property at the same time. Priority is given, in this case, to mortgagees in the order that the mortgages were registered (prior in tempore, prior in iure).
The pledge of the mortgagee (creditor) can, if the principal debt is not paid in full by the mortgagor or pledgor (debtor), have the security object sold in execution and is entitled to the proceeds of the sale in execution for payment of the principal debt. In the case of insolvency of the pledgor or mortgagor, the pledge or mortgagee acquires a preferent claim to the proceeds of the sale of the security object.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on March 25, 2015 by Toksentjops.
Wat kan gedoen word om ‘n onderhoudsbevel af te dwing teen ‘n persoon wat verantwoordelik is daarvoor om onderhoud te betaal, maar versuim om dit te betaal of te min betaal?
Indien ‘n persoon wat verplig is om onderhoud te betaal, dit nie doen nie, kan die persoon wat geregtig op onderhoud is ‘n klag by die Onderhoudsbeampte van die geskikte landdroshof aanhangig maak. Die Onderhoudsbeampte moet dan die klagte ondersoek en kan dan ‘n ondersoek instel in ‘n onderhoudshof. Die Onderhoudsbeampte, en nie die klaer nie, maak die finale beslissing of ‘n ondersoek ingestel moet word al dan nie. Tydens die ondersoek kan die Onderhoudsbeampte enige verklarings of enige relevante inligting met betrekking tot die betaling van onderhoud versoek. ‘n Ondersoek kragtens die Wet op Onderhoud kan in kort gedefinieer word as ‘n proses wat mense bemagtig om hul regte en dié van hul kind(ers) op die Staat se onkoste af te dwing. Gedurende die onderhoudsondersoek kom die partye gewoonlik tot ‘n ooreenkoms en versoek om die verrigtinge te onttrek of versoek dat die terme van die ooreenkoms ‘n bevel van die hof gemaak word. Hierdie bevel kan nie verontagsaam word deur die partye nie. Indien die partye nie tot ‘n ooreenkoms kan kom rakende die bepalings in terme van onderhoud nie, sal die aangeleentheid na die onderhoudshof verwys word.
Indien die hof ‘n onderhoudsbevel toestaan kragtens die Wet, en sodanige persoon versuim om enige betaling ooreenkomstig die bevel te maak, moet die klaer die bevel afdwing deur:
eksekusie teen eiendom;
‘n besoldigingsbeslagbevel; of
Indien onderhoudsgelde in terme van ‘n onderhoudsbevel kragtens die Wet uitstaande bly vir ‘n tydperk van tien dae vanaf die dag waarop die bedrag betaalbaar was of van wanneer die bevel toegestaan is, kan die persoon ten gunste van wie die bevel gemaak is in die onderhoudshof aansoek doen vir die volgende:
die uitreiking van ‘n lasbrief vir eksekusie,
die uitreiking van ‘n besoldigingsbeslagbevel of
‘n bevel vir skuldbeslaglegging. Die aansoek moet vergesel word van ‘n afskrif van die oorspronklike onderhoudsbevel of ander bevel en ‘n eedverklaring wat vasstel wat die uitstaande onderhoudsbedrag is.
‘n Persoon wat verplig is om onderhoud te betaal en versuim om dit te doen, kan skuldig bevind word aan ‘n misdryf wat strafbaar is met ‘n boete of gevangenisstraf. Die staatsaanklaer kan die hof nader vir ‘n beslissing dat die agterstallige onderhoud betaal moet word, tesame met of in plaas van die uitvoering van ‘n boete of tronkstraf.
Met die aansoek van die staatsaanklaer en addisioneel tot of in plaas van die oplegging van ‘n straf, kan die hof ‘n bevel uitreik aan enige persoon wat skuldig is aan versuim om ‘n betaling te maak ooreenkomstig ‘n onderhoudsbevel, vir die invordering vanaf daardie persoon van die bedrag wat hy of sy versuim het om te betaal, plus enige rente.
In die geval waar jy in die situasie geplaas word waar jou vorige gade nie die onderhoudsbevel nakom nie, sal jou beste opsie wees om die Onderhoudsbeampte te nader om die uitstaande bedrae te bereken. Daarna, as die persoon steeds versuim om die betaling te maak, kan ‘n prokureur genader word om voort te gaan met die uitvoering van die bevel, indien die persoon voldoende roerende of vaste eiendom besit, of ‘n besoldigingsbevel teen die persoon kry wat op die werkgewer van die persoon beteken word, of die onderhoudshof kan genader word vir ‘n bevel vir die beslaglegging van enige skuld wat, nou of toekomstig, aan die persoon verskuldig is.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on May 9, 2014 by Toksentjops.