A POTENTIAL ‘RIGHT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY’ AFTER MAKING A VALID OFFER, CAN BE PROTECTED BY WAY OF AN INTERDICT
Vumazonke and Another v Rheeder and Others (835/2024) [2024] ZAECELLC 35 (16 July 2024)
This judgment deals with a battle between two would-be property purchasers. The first offer was subject to a suspensive condition and also contained a 72-hour clause. It provided that, should the seller receive a second, unconditional offer before the suspensive condition in the first offer was met, the seller may accept that second offer unless the first offeror could make its offer unconditional within 72 hours. When the second, unconditional offer came in, the mechanisms of the 72-hour clause commenced. However, the first offeror stuck her heels in and advised the seller that her offer can be regarded as unconditional. This communication was not honest because the first offeror had, at the time, not yet received bond approval. The court granted an interim interdict in favour of the second offeror prohibiting transfer to the first offeror, stating that it had the right to protect its potential ‘right to acquire property’ flowing from the offer submitted.
The judgment can be viewed here
Summary of the Judgment
TRUSTEES’ ACCOUNTING DUTIES ENCOMPASS MORE THAN PROVIDING BANK STATEMENTS TO BENEFICIARY
Snyman v De Kooker NO and Others (400/2023) [2024] ZASCA 119 (2 August 2024)
Snyman was awarded damages by a court after she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The court awarding the damages, required that a trust be set up to manage the funds on her behalf. Soon, unfortunately, it appeared that the trust funds were not applied in Snyman’s interest or in accordance with the fiduciary duties of trustees. The latter includes accounting to her as income and capital beneficiary of the trust in a way that adequately explains the reasons for transactions. Providing bank statements and investment records is not enough.