News From Van Zyl Kruger

View Online \| Forward Newsletter
January 2020
Dear Client / Geagte Kliënt

The PIE Act – QUO VADIS ?

Die aanvanklik doel waarvoor die Wet op die Voorkoming van Onwettige en Onregmatige Besetting van Grond, Wet 19 van 1998 (of “the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act” hierin genoem die PIE-wet / Act) uitgevaardig was, was om grond-besettings in stedelike gebiede te reguleer en te beheer deur die uitsetting van onwettige besetters (plakkers) sonder 'n hofbevel te verbied.

The ambit of the PIE Act was, however, extended by the Court in a judgement handed down in the Supreme Court Appeal case of Ndlovu Ngcobo, Bekker & Another v Jika (2002) 4 All 384. The court held that tenants, or defaulting mortgagors, who remain in the subject premises after a lease has been lawfully terminated or after a bank foreclosure, are in the same position as unlawful occupiers and that the PIE Act therefore also applies to eviction proceedings brought against them.

Die praktiese uitvloeisel van bogemelde uitspraak was dat huurders, en wanbetalers, dus beskerming geniet onder die PIE-wet, wat ooglopende nie die bedoeling van die wetgewer was toe dit die PIE-wet gepromulgeer was nie. Uit die praktyk is dit duidelik dat heelparty huurders deeglik bewus is dat dié interpretasie van die PIE-wet hulle bevoordeel en die situasie word dus dikwels misbruik.

On the other hand, it would be unlawful for a landlord/owner of property to change the locks on the doors to prevent a tenant from having access to the property and to have services such as electricity disconnected. Evicting a tenant without a court order is also a criminal offence. Getting an eviction order is often a time consuming and expensive legal process which usually requires upfront payment of legal fees.

Daar word beweer dat sommige huurders selfs die situasie uitbuit as 'n geleentheid om munt te slaan uit hul situasie deur duisende rande van die verhuurder / eienaar te eis voordat hulle vrywillig die eiendom sal ontruim.

Imagine finding yourself, as landlord, in situation where you have to decide if you are going to give in to such a demand, and pay, or if you’re going to take the long, expensive route to get a legal eviction order. Most of the time the landlord is unable to recover the costs expended from the tenant which means that the landlord would in any event be the one to foot the bill. Where is the fairness and justice in this?

Hierdie toedrag van sake het daartoe gelei dat baie eienaars nou versigtig is om eiendom aan huurders te verhuur uit vrees dat huurders wat nie betaal nie, eers ná 'n lang en duur proses ontruim kan word. Sommige eienaars dring gereeld aan op 'n baie hoë huur-deposito om die omvang van hul waarskynlike verlies te beperk.

A number of amendments to the PIE Act have been proposed in the past, but nothing has been approved or implemented. One of the suggestions was to change the definition of unlawful occupier to exclude tenants and mortgagors from its scope. Another suggestion was that the PIE Act should state that defaulting mortgagors are to be evicted in terms of the Mortgage Agreement and that tenants in default of the terms of a lease agreement are to be evicted in terms of the Rental Housing Act.

Daar is natuurlik ook kritiek uitgespreek teen die voorgestelde wysigings. Daar word aangevoer dat die bedoeling van die PIE-wet was om alle kwesbare persone en nie net plakkers nie te beskerm teen onregmatige uitsetting vanuit hul wonings en dat die uitsluiting van huurders van die PIE-wet se toepassing huurders kwesbaar sal laat teen gewetenlose verhuurders.

Ons gevoel, soos dié van vele ander, is dat die PIE-wet beslis heroorweeg moet word en dat 'n meer gebalanseerde benadering nodig is om beskerming en billikheid aan alle partye te bied.

Finally, as to the question whether, or not, the PIE Act applies to commercial properties? In the Constitutional Court Decision of MC Denneboom Service Station CC and Another v Phayane 2015 (1) SA 54 (CC) the Court held that where one aims to evict a commercial occupant, or a juristic person, then such eviction will not fall within the scope of the PIE Act as the PIE Act does not apply to evictions of juristic persons and to persons that do not make use of a building or structure as a means of shelter or a dwelling. The PIE Act will however apply if the unlawful occupiers reside on or within a commercial property.

Alles van die beste vir 2020. May you endeavours be fruitful and your challenges trivial!

Groete / Greetings!

Hennie, Eberhard & Cheryl-Anne | Directors

		January is “Divorce Month”: Beware the Dangers of DIY
		For most of us January signals the start of a whole new year, a chance to come back from a refreshing break re-energised and re-focused on all our future plans and dreams. For some married couples however January has a much darker side. It’s not known as “Divorce Month” for nothing. The Festive Season’s peak potential for conflict and tension is now compounded by the annual “return to reality” with all its stresses and financial hangovers – fertile ground for unhappiness and divorce. In this article we’ll highlight one particularly vital aspect of divorce – the serious long-term consequences of every decision a divorcing couple makes now, and the equally serious dangers of falling for the siren call of the “DIY Divorce” option.

Jou skriftelike kontrak moet alles dek – geen mondelinge getuienis later toegelaat!
Ons almal weet hoe belangrik dit is om ooreenkomste op skrif te plaas, selfs waar ons reg nie spesifiek van ons vereis om dit te doen nie. Dit maak sin om vooraf seker te maak dat alles waarop ons ooreengekom het volledig en duidelik op skrif uiteengesit is. Om dit nie te doen nie, is ‘n resep vir dispute, vertragings en duur litigasie. Wat gebeur wanneer iets waarop julle mondelings ooreengekom het, vir een of ander rede nie in die skriftelike kontrak vervat is nie? Kan jy mondelinge getuienis lewer om dit te bewys of te bevestig? ‘n Onlangse uitspraak van die Hoogste Hof van Appèl illustreer die regs- en praktiese beginsels wat hier ter sprake is. Hier was die betrokke partye ‘n vrugte- en wynplaas en die boorder van boorgate. Hy het sy vernuf as waterwyser gebruik om water op te spoor. Die punt in geskil – het die boorder die boorgat se wateropbrengs in hul ooreenkoms gewaarborg of nie.

		Must You Pay Tax on Your Rental Income?
		Renting out property has consistently made a lot of people a lot of money in the past, and if that concept appeals to you and if a good buy-to-let opportunity should present itself, grab it while you can. Just don’t underestimate the importance to your financial viability planning of the Taxman’s cut of your earnings. Of course professional advice on your specific tax circumstances is essential here, but it’s still important to understand the general concepts involved. What rental income must you declare? What expenses can you deduct for tax purposes? What about ring-fencing? What records must you keep? Read on for some insights…

Our Directors

Eberhard
Kruger
DIRECTOR
021 180 4552 / 082 789 1706
ekruger@vzk.co.za

Cheryl-Anne
Ehrenreich
DIRECTOR
021 180 4564 / 082 783 7242
cheryl@vzk.co.za

Andre
Van Greunen
DIRECTOR
021 180 4550
andre@vzk.co.za

Full Bio →



		Marzanne Van Wyk DIRECTOR 021 180 4551 marzanne@vzk.co.za				Kumedzani Muloiwa DIRECTOR 021 180 4578 kume@vzk.co.za

© LawDotNews & Van Zyl Kruger Inc. This newsletter is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal 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.

VAN ZYL KRUGER INCORPORATED (REG. NO 2015/174073/21) (VAT NUMBER 413 0273 172)

www.vzk.co.za

Suite 520 Tyger Lake, Niagara Road,
Tyger Waterfront, Bellville, Cape Town

info@vzk.co.za | Reception: 021 180 4550 | Fax: 021 180 4540

DIRECTORS: E S KRUGER (B.COMM LL.B MPRE); C A EHRENREICH (BA.LL.B LL.M); AJ VAN GREUNEN (BPROC, LLB, LLM);
M VAN WYK (B.COM LLB); K MULOIWA (LLB)
ASSOCIATES: S JANSE VAN RENSBURG (B.COM LL.B); L J CHANTLER (B.COMM LL.B);
A BARNARD (B.COM LL.B DIP.FIN PLANNING); B SCHOLTZ (LL.B)
PRACTICE MANAGER: F BRAVENBOER (NDIP FIS)
EXECUTIVE CONSULTANT: HL VAN ZYL (B.PROC) CONSULTANTS: JAL VAN ZYL (B.JURIS LL.B);
C I’ANSON-SPARKS Solicitor in England and Wales (LL.B(HONS), DIP LEGAL PRACTICE)