DEFAULTING PURCHASER SEEKS TO INTERDICT ON-SELLING
Fatmols Lodges Proprietary Ltd v Botha and Others (017800/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 30 (17 January 2024)
An anti-dissipation interdict is similar to an ‘ordinary’ interdict, but only to a certain extent. In a property law context, an application for an interdict of this nature is considered where a purchaser, who has entered into a property sale agreement, seeks to interdict the seller from dealing with the property because of the apprehension that the seller, who is leaving the country, might not return their deposit. As this case illustrates, an anti-dissipation interdict will not be granted in the absence of proof of distinct facts. To that end, the summary below elucidates the requirements to succeed.
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment
‘ACCREDITATION FEES’: AGENTS’ UNDESIREABLE PRACTICES INCREASINGLY IN THE LIMELIGHT
PPRA’s latest Guidance Note on Undesirable Business Practices, September 2023
The Regulations to the Property Practitioners Act prohibit various ‘undesirable business practices’ under threat of penalty. Notwithstanding this, the Property Practitioners’ Regulatory Authority has, as at February of this year, fined more than 150 agents over the past few months for contravening these prohibitions. In our discussion below, we look at the various stakeholders’ points of departure in the context of the legislative requirements.