Shaik and Others

The recent judgment in Shaik & others v Pillay & others [2007] JOL 20893 (N) is a valuable alert to pitfalls that real estate practitioners may encounter when dealing with contracts for the sale of members' interest relating to immovable property. Although the court concluded that no valid agreement came into existence as the parties clearly intended that both their signatures were necessary for a valid agreement, the comments by Maryna Botha STBB's training and operations manager are worth highlighting:

Where an individual instructs an agent with the view to purchasing a property, receives an agreement, signs it, pays a deposit timeously, furnishes guarantees to the seller's conveyancers on the due dates as well as relevant documentation on request, he/she should have been reasonably able to assume that everything was in order and that the transaction would result in transfer.

There are lessons in this case for attorneys, conveyancers, estate agents and purchasers, among others:

• Estate agents should not instruct attorneys to transfer property (or cede shares in property owning entities) until they are certain that a valid and binding agreement has been reached between seller and purchaser. • Conveyancers/attorneys should always check signature clauses in agreements, and should follow up if any uncertainty exists. • Potential purchasers should, after making an offer, never assume acceptance. There should always be insistence on obtaining a copy of the signed agreement or, if a verbal agreement, on written confirmation of acceptance (or at least on verbal confirmation in the presence of reliable witnesses) by the seller.
  
  
• Real estate practitioners sometimes tend to treat cession of shares/members' interest agreements as if they are mere variations of ordinary property transfers.