SUSPENSIVE CONDITION FULLFILLED? ESTATE AGENCY SUCCESSFULLY CLAIMS COMMISSION
PG Sharedealing (Pty) Ltd v First Realty Randburg (Pty) Ltd t/a Chas Everitt International Property Group (A5058/2017)  ZAGPJHC 645 (3 December 2018)
This judgment dealt, amongst other things, with the question whether an estate agent exercised a discretion afforded to it to extend a bond due date. The seller argued the wording of the bond clause in the Offer to Purchase did not constitute an ‘automatic extension’, or failing that and furthermore, that the estate agency was not entitled to commission due to alleged non-compliance with the Estate Agency Affairs Act’s Fidelity Fund Certificate requirements. This is how things unfolded…
POWERS OF ADJUDICATORS OF THE COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD
Evergreen Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v Messerschmidt (A409/2017)  ZAGPPHC 786 (10 October 2018)
The Office of the Community Schemes Ombud is empowered to address a wide range of disputes arising in communal living schemes. On this understanding, the claimant (and holder of a life right in a retirement scheme) challenged the developer of the scheme (as owner of the land) before the Ombud. He argued that the benefit of a rebate granted by the municipality to owners of retirement schemes, which the relevant policy stated had to be “passed on” to holders of life rights, meant that he had the right to claim the rebate amount from the developer if the levies were not adjusted to reflect the rebate. The Act however limits which orders an adjudicator may grant in respect of financial issues, and the Court concluded that in granting an order in favour of the claimant, the adjudicator acted beyond the powers granted in the legislation. The judgment highlights how important it is to understand the extent of the powers and functions of the Ombud’s office and its adjudicators, before referring a dispute to that office.