With reference to the summary and the discussion of the case of Erf 441 Robertsville Property CC and Another v New Market Developments (Pty) Ltd 2007 (2) SA 179 (W) in the July edition of the De Rebus I am of the opinion, with respect to Judge Goldstone, that the learned judge erred in his judgement that section 67 of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance 15 of 1986 is not applicable when a sectional title unit is being sold. As it was held that a sectional title unit, including an undivided share in the common property, does not constitute an erf for purposes of Section 67 of the said Ordinance.
In terms of Section 3 of the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986, a Unit is deemed to be land and land in the Sectional Title Act is defined as the land comprised in a scheme as shown on the sectional plan. This surely encompasses the erf / land on which the scheme was opened.
The whole purpose of Section 67 is to procure an indisputable sale of property in terms of which all the provisions relating to services, etc. are complied with. It will be a sad day if a sectional title unit can be sold in terms of a contract deemed to be a valid contract, and ultimately transfer cannot be effected in view of the fact that proclamation of the township is not possible. The main purpose of the introduction of section 67 was to protect purchasers of land from dodgy developers.
It would be appreciated if readers could share their comments on the above case.
Property Law Specialist