1. Department of Land Affairs Presentation to the
Portfolio Committee on Agriculture & Land Affairs:
The Department’s 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
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

3. 1.Peter Nathan: (Sectional Title Services) / NAMA
DLA POSITION:
The Department does not agree;
Recommends that the clause as tabled be adopted;
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

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.”
4/18/2019

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 Magistrate’s Court currently has jurisdiction for this class of offence.
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

8. 3. Banking Association of South Africa:
COMMENT:
The Association fully supports the Bill.
4/18/2019

9. 4. Thubelisha Homes:
COMMENT:
They have no comment.
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

11. 5. South African Property Owners’ Association
DLA POSITION:
The extension of the closing date is out of the Department’s 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.
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

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.’’
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

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.
4/18/2019

19. WE THANK YOU!
4/18/2019