SELLING WHEN YOU ARE NOT THE OWNER
Köster v Norval (20609/14)  ZASCA 185 (30 November 2015)
An interesting set of facts led to the court confirming that, in our law, it is not an essential feature that a seller must be owner of the thing sold. The seller is however required to deliver undisturbed possession of the thing sold and to warrant against eviction. Here this was in the context of a shareholder selling all the shares in a company owning a game farm, implements and game. The game was however sold in a separate agreement by the shareholder, not the company. The purchaser refused to pay the purchase price for the game, arguing that the seller was not the owner and could therefore not dispose of the game.
REDUCED RATES FOR HOA BECAUSE IT MAINTAINS ITS OWN INFRASTRUCTURE?
Blair Atholl Homeowners Association v The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (20634/2014)  ZASCA 195 (1 December 2015)
This matter relates to the homeowners’ association and developer in an upmarket estate disputing why they were required to pay equivalent rates to property owners outside the estate when they maintain their own services in the estate. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that neither the Constitution, which gives municipalities the power to levy rates on property, nor the Rates Act links municipal property services with rates. It was thus not inequitable for the property owners to be charged equivalent rates to differently situated ratepayers.