Monthly Archives: June 2013

Some pointers for planning your estate

article1nl-The main aim of planning your estate is to ensure that as much of the accumulated wealth is utilised for your own benefit and for the maximum utilisation of dependants on your death.

‘Estate planning’ has been defined as the process of creating and managing a programme that is designed to:

  • Preserve, increase and protect your assets during your lifetime; 
  • Ensuring the most effective and beneficial distribution thereof to succeeding generations.

It is a common misconception that it revolves solely around the making of a Last Will and Testament, or the structuring of affairs so as to reduce estate duty.

Each person’s estate is unique and should be structured according to his/her own unique set of circumstances, goals and objectives.

The lack of liquidity on the date of death may cause for the deceased’s family members and dependants to suffer hardship, as certain assets might be sold by the executor to generate the cash needed.

Liquidity means that there should be enough cash funds to provide for:

  • Paying estate duty; 
  • Settling estate liabilities and administration costs; 
  • Providing for other taxation liabilities that may arise at death, such as capital gains tax

Technically the estate is frozen until such time as the Master of the High Court has issued Letters of Executorship.

Dying without executing a valid Last Will and Testament, your estate will be dealt with as an intestate estate, and the laws relating to intestate succession will apply. The Intestate Succession Act determines that the surviving spouse will inherit the greater of R125, 000 or a child’s share. A child’s share is determined by dividing the total value of the estate by the number of the children and the surviving spouse. If the spouses were married in community of property, one half of the estate goes to the surviving spouse as a consequence of the marriage, and the other half devolves according to the rules of intestate succession. If there is no surviving spouse or dependants, the estate is divided between the parents and /or siblings. In the absence of parents or siblings, the estate is divided between the nearest blood relatives.

An executor is entitled to the following remuneration;

  • remuneration fixed by the deceased in the Last Will and Testament; or
  • 3,5% of gross assets; and
  • 6% on income accrued and collected from date of death.

Executor’s remuneration is subject to VAT where the executor is registered as a vendor.
Where the value of the estate exceed R3,5 million, estate duty will become payable on the balance in excess of R3,5 million, with the exception of the property bequeathed to a surviving spouse, which are exempt from estate duty and /or capital gains tax.

Section 3 of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, prevents the subdivision of agricultural land, and such land being registered in undivided shares in more than one person’s name is subject to Ministerial approval.

A minor child is a person under the age of 18 years of age, and any funds bequeathed to a minor child will be held by the Guardian’s Fund, which falls under the administration of the Master of the High Court. These funds are not freely accessible, and are usually invested at below market interest rates. It is thus advisable to provide for minors by means of a trust.

The Close Corporations Act provides that, subject to the association agreement, where an heir is to inherit a member’s interest (in terms of the deceased’s Will), the consent of the remaining members (if any) must be obtained. If no consent is given within 28 days after it was requested by the executor, then the executor is forced to sell the members interest.

Section 3(3)(d) of Estate Duty Act determines that where an asset is transferred to a trust during an estate planner’s lifetime, yet the estate planner, as trustee of the trust retains such power as would allow him to dispose of the trust asset(s) unilaterally for his own or his beneficiaries benefit during his lifetime, then such asset(s) may be deemed to be property of the estate planner and included in his estate for estate duty purposes.

Where the parties are married in community of property, the surviving spouse will have a claim for 50% of the value of the combined estate, thus reducing the actual value of the estate by 50%. The estate is divided after all the debts have been settled in a deceased estate (not including burial costs and estate duty, as these are the sole obligations of the deceased and not the joint estate). Only half of any assets can be bequeathed.

The proceeds from life insurance policies can be used to:

  • Generate income to maintain dependants while the estate is dealt with; 
  • Pay estate expenses: funeral, income tax, estate administration, estate duty.

All proceeds of South African “domestic” policies taken out on the estate planner’s life, where there is no beneficiary nominated on the policy, will fall into his estate on his death.

Where a beneficiary is nominated on the policy, the proceeds will be deemed property for estate duty purposes, even and although they are paid directly to the beneficiary (subject to partial exemptions based on policy premiums).

Policies which are exempted from inclusion for estate duty purposes are buy and sell, key man policies, and those policies ceded to a spouse or child in terms of an antenuptial contract.

Certain assets in a deceased estate are excluded from capital gains tax.

  • Assets for personal use (with certain exceptions); 
  • Assets that accrue to the surviving spouse; 
  • Assets bequeathed to approved public benefit organisations;
  • The proceeds from life assurance policies; Interests in pension, provident or retirement annuity funds; 
  • The first R2 million in respect of a primary residence; 
  • The first R750,000 in respect of small business assets;
  • Currency, excluding gold and platinum coins.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

Kapitaalwinsbelasting en die verkoop van ‘n eiendom

article4nlKapitaalwinsbelasting het in werking getree op 1 Oktober 2001. Kapitaalwinsbelasting is betaalbaar op die wins wat ‘n verkoper maak wanneer sy eiendom verkoop word.

Wat beteken Kapitaalwins

Die bedrag waarmee die opbrengs van ‘n verkoping van ‘n bate die basiskoste oorskry staan bekend as die kapitaalwins.

Wat is basiskoste

Die basiskoste van ‘n bate is die bedrag wat vir die bate betaal is plus uitgawes wat aangegaan is. By die berekening van basiskoste kan die volgende koste ingesluit word :

  • Die koste vir die verkryging van die eiendom wat insluit, die koopsom, oordragkoste, hereregte en professionele fooie van o.a. die prokureurs, die landmeter en die afslaer.
  • Die koste van verbeterings, veranderinge en opknapping van die eiendom waarvoor daar fakture en/ of kwitansies as bewys moet wees.
  • Die koste van vervreemding van die eiendom, o.a. advertensiekoste, die koste verbonde aan die verkryging van ‘n waardasie vir Kapitaalwinsdoeleindes en eiendomsagentekommissie.

Hoe word die basiskoste bereken in gevalle waar die eiendom voor 1 Oktober 2001 verkry is
Indien die eiendom voor 1 Oktober 2001 verkry is kan een van die volgende metodes gebruik word om die waarde van die eiendom te bereken:

  • 20% x ( opbrengs minus uitgawes aangegaan op of na 1Oktober 2001)
  • Die markwaarde van die eiendom soos op 1 Oktober 2001 welke waardasie bekom moes wees voor 30 September 2004.
  • Tydverdeling- basiskoste metode. Die oorspronklike koste + (opbrengs – oorspronklike koste) x aantal jare wat eiendom gehou is voor 1 Oktober 2001 gedeel deur die aantal jare gehou voor 1 Oktober 2001+ aantal jare gehou na 1 Oktober 2001).

Hoe word Kapitaalwinsbelasting betaal

Kapitaalwinsbelasting is nie ‘n belasting wat addisioneel tot inkomstebelasting betaalbaar is nie. ‘n Gedeelte van ‘n persoon se kapitaalwins word ingesluit in sy belasbare inkomste. Dit sal dan onderhewig wees aan die betaling van normale inkomstebelasting. ‘n Gedeelte van ‘n belastingbetaler se kapitaalwins minus sy kapitaalverliese vir ‘n spesifieke jaar word ingesluit in die belastingbetaler se belasbare inkomste en is belasting betaalbaar volgens die normale inkomstebelastingtabelle.

Hoe word kapitaalwins bereken

In geval van ‘n individu word die eerste R30 000 van die totale kapitaalwins buite rekening gelaat. Daarna moet 33.3% van die kapitaalwins wat verkry is by die vervreemding van ‘n eiendom, ingesluit word in die belasbare inkomste van die persoon vir die jaar waarin die eiendom vervreem is. Waar ‘n maatskappy of beslote korporasie of ‘n gewone trust ‘n eiendom besit word 66,6% van die kapitaalwins ingesluit by die belasbare inkomste.

Primêre eiendom en Kapitaalwinsbelasting

Vanaf 1 Maart 2012 is die eerste R2 miljoen kapitaalwins op die vervreemding van ‘n primêre eiendom uitgesluit van die betaling van kapitaalwinsbelasting. Hierdie uitsluiting is net van toepassing indien die eiendom geregistreer is in die naam van ‘n individu of ‘n spesiale trust. Die grootte van die eiendom moet ook nie 2 hektaar oorskry nie. As die eiendom gedeeltelik vir woondoeleindes en gedeeltelik vir werksdoeleindes gebruik word moet ‘n proporsionele verdeling gedoen word.

Wanneer verskillende individue aandele in ‘n primêre eiendom besit sal die uitsluiting proporsioneel wees tot die aandeel wat elkeen besit. Byvoorbeeld, wanneer eggenote wat getroud is buite gemeenskap van goedere saam die primêre eiendom besit, sal elkeen kwalifiseer vir die uitsluiting van R1 miljoen. Elke eggenoot sal verder geregtig wees op die jaarlikse uitsluiting wat tans R30 000 beloop.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien

My broer se oppasser: Die onbetaalde boukontrakteur en die verrykte eienaar

article3nl‘n Boukontrakteur het ‘n geldige en bindende, geskrewe boukontrak gesluit met ‘n beslote korporasie vir die oprigting en bou van ‘n residensiële eiendom op ‘n erf geregistreer in die naam van die enkele lid van die beslote korporasie en ‘n derde party.

Ten spyte daarvan dat die finale betalingsertifikaat steeds uitstaande, betaalbaar en verskuldig was, is okkupasie verleen en het die boukontrakteur die besit van die eiendom teruggegee aan die eienaars van die erf, en daardeur sy bouspan opgegee.

Die boukontrakteur het intussen dagvaarding, gebaseer op die boukontrak, uitgereik teen die beslote korporasie. Die beslote korporasie het egter geen bates nie. Die vraag wat ontstaan is of die boukontrakteur ‘n alternatiewe eis teen die mede-eienaars van die erf het vir verryking. Die erf is immers verbeter deur die oprigting van ‘n woning.

Die ontwikkeling van die verrykingsreg in Suid-Afrika is ‘n gevoelige slag toegedien in die uitspraak deur Jansen R in Couws v Jester Pools (Pty) Limited 1968 (3) SA 563 (T). Die hof het ‘n baie eng interpretasie van die verrykingsreg ingeneem en die hantering van eise daarvolgens.

Jester Pools wie ‘n swembad op ‘n eiendom opgerig, was onder die indruk dat die persoon met wie hulle gekontrakteer het, die eienaar van die eiendom was. In werklikheid, het hulle met ‘n derde gekontrakteer. Die hof het bevind dat Jester Pools nie ‘n verrykingseis het teen die werklike eienaar van eiendom nie, ongeag of die eisbedrag bereken is op die verhoging van die waarde van die eiendom of die werklike uitgawe van die swembad opgerig. Jester Pools moes die verlies aanvaar en boonop die regskostes van die eienaar ook betaal.

Die “oppasser van sy broer se goedere”, welke ‘n persoon of ‘n entiteit kan wees en wie optree in die belang van ‘n ander, kan in sekere omstandighede kostes aangaan of uitgawes oploop. Die verhaling van hierdie kostes of uitgawes kan problematies wees.

Afhangend van die feitestel, kan ‘n eis ingestel word óf van verryking (conditio indebiti or conditio sine causa) óf gebaseer op ongemagtigde bestuur (negotiorum gestio).

Enige eis gebaseer op verryking hetsy as conditio indebiti of conditio sine causa conditio indebiti of conditio sine causa, het vier, feitelik soortgelyke essensiële elemente waaraan ‘n eiser moet voldoen ten einde suksesvol te wees.

Die elemente van verryking behels in kort die verryking van ‘n ander ten koste van die oppasser en die verarming van die oppasser sonder enige regverdiging daarvan.

‘n Negotiorum gestio-eis het ook vier essensiële elemente.

Eerstens, die oppasser moes die sake van ‘n ander bestuur het. Hierdie oppasser kan ‘n maatskappy, trust or ‘n natuurlike persoon wees. Die sake van ‘n maatskappy, trust of ‘n natuurlike persoon kan bestuur word.

Tweedens, moes die ander onbewus gewees het dat sy sake namens hom bestuur is.

‘n Baie belangrike element is dat die oppasser die bedoeling moes gehad het om die sake van ‘n ander te bestuur.

Vierdens, moes die bestuur van die sake redelik gewees het. Selfs waar die bestuur onsuksesvol gewees het, sal die oppasser ‘n verhalingseis hê. Sou die bestuur egter onredelik gewees het, sal die oppasser geen eis hê nie.

Ten einde suksesvol te wees met ‘n negotiorum gestio-eis, sal ons boukontrakteur aan al die bovermelde essensiële elemente moet voldoen. Die kontraktuele verpligtinge en verantwoordelikhede tussen die boukontrakteur en die korporasie negeer die vereiste van die bedoeling van die boukontrakteur om die sake van die korporasie te bestuur het. Of die vraag of sodanige bestuur redelik was. Die Couws v Jester Pools-uitspraak het die boukontrakteur se eis beperk tot die bepalings van die kontrak, met die gepaardgaande risiko van ‘n leë vonnis met weinig indien enige hoop om verhaling van die uitstaande bedrag.

Gelukkig vir ons boukontrakteur, het twee uitsprake amper dertig jaar na die Couws v Jester Pools-uitspraak, die weg gebaan vir ‘n uitbreiding van die negotiorum gestio of ongemagtigde bestuur namens ‘n derde in ‘n “uitgebreide” actio negotiorum gestorum or the actio negotiorum utilis. Hierdie ontwikkeling sal veral die boukontrakteur ten behoewe wees aangesien hy geen bedoeling gehad het om die sake van ‘n ander te bestuur nie en/of waar die redelikheid van die bestuur in twyfel getrek word.

In ABSA Bank Limited t/a Bankfin v Stander t/a CAW Paneelkloppers 1998 (1) SA 939 (C) omskryf Van Zyl R in besonderhede die ontwikkeling van die Suid-Afrikaanse verrykingsreg. Die uitspraak gee ‘n kursoriese dog gedetailleerde agtergrond insae in hierdie spesifieke afdeling van ons reg.

Hierdie uitspraak brei die reikwydte van die verrykingsreg uit. Alhoewel ‘n algemene verrykingsaksie steeds nie voorgestel of aanvaar word nie, word die leemtes gelaat deur die Couws v Jester Pools-uitspraak ten minste te ingevul.

Die appèlhof besin hieroor in die tweede uitspraak, McCarthy Retail Limited v Shortdistance Carriers CC, gelewer deur Schutz AR op 16 Maart 2001 onder saak nommer 110/1990. Die uitspraak onderskei die benarde posisie van ons boukontrakteur, maar die uitspraak handel nie spesifiek daarmee nie. Die sydelingse opmerkings voer die aangeleentheid wel verder en helder die gesag aangehaal in die uitspraak, op.

Die gewaande onregverdighede voortspruitend uit die Couws v Jester Pools-uitspraak is reggestel.

Daarvolgens kan ons boukontrakteur ‘n alternatiewe eis teen die geregistreerde eienaars van die erf waarop die woning opgerig is, instel. Sou die beslote korporasie nie in staat wees om die betalingsverpligting teenoor ons boukontrakteur na te kom nie, kan die eienaars van die erf dalk net hul oppasser moet vergoed daarvoor.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien

Capital Gains Tax and the sale of a property

article4nlCapital Gains Tax was introduced on 1 October 2001. Capital Gains Tax is payable on the profit a seller makes when disposing of his property.

What is meant by Capital Gain

A person’s capital gain on an asset disposed of is the amount by which the proceeds exceed the base cost of that asset.

What is base cost

The base cost of an asset is what you paid for it, plus the expenditure. The following can be included in calculating the base cost:

  • The costs of acquiring the property, including the purchase price, transfer costs, transfer duty and professional fees e.g. attorneys fees and fees paid to a surveyor and auctioneer.
  • The cost of improvements, alterations and renovations which can be proved by invoices and/ or receipts.
  • The cost of disposing of the property, e.g. advertising costs, cost of obtaining a valuation for capital gains purposes, and estate agents commission .

How is base cost calculated of assets held before 1 October 2001

If the property was acquired before 1 October 2001 you may use one of the following methods to value the property :

  • 20% x (proceeds less expenditure incurred on or after 1 October 2001).
  • The market value of the asset as at 1 October 2001, which valuation must have been obtained before 30 September 2004.
  • Time -apportionment base cost method. Original cost + (proceeds – original cost) x number of years held before 1 October 2001divided by the number of years held before 1 October 2001 + number of years held after 1 October 2001).

How is Capital Gains Tax paid

Capital Gains Tax is not a separate tax from income tax. Part of a person’s capital gain is included in his taxable income. It is then subject to normal tax. A portion of the total of the taxpayer’s capital gain less capital losses for the year is included in the taxpayer’s taxable income and taxed in terms of normal tax tables.

How is Capital Gain calculated

If you are an individual, the first R30 000 of your total capital gain will be disregarded. Then 33.3% of the capital gain made on disposal of the property must be included in the taxable income for the year of assessment in which the property is sold. When the property is owned by a company, a close corporation or an ordinary trust, 66,6% of the capital gain must be included in their taxable income.

Primary residence and Capital Gains Tax

As from 1 March 2012 the first R2 million of any capital gain on the sale of a primary residence is exempted from Capital Gains Tax. This exemption only applies where the property is registered in the name of an individual or in the name of a special trust. The property should furthermore not exceed 2 hectares.

If the property is used partially for residential and partially for business purposes, an apportionment must be done. If more than one person holds an interest in a primary residence, the exclusion will be in proportion to the interest held by each party. For example, if you and your spouse have an equal interest in the primary residence, you will each qualify for a primary residence exclusion of R1 million. You will also be entitled to the annual exclusion, currently R30 000.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

My brothers keeper: The unfortunate building contractor and the enriched owner

article3nlA building contractor entered a binding and legal, written building contract with a closed corporation to erect a residential house on land registered to the sole member of the corporation and a third party.

Occupation was taken and the builder released the property (and thus his builder’s lien) to the owners of the land, in spite of the final certificate still outstanding, due, owing and payable.

The building contractor has issued summons in terms of the written building contract against the corporation, which has no assets. The question arose whether the building contractor has an alternative claim against the co-owners of the land for enrichment as the land has been improved with the residence.

The development of the law of enrichment in South African was dealt a severe blow in the judgment of Couws v Jester Pools (Pty) Limited 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) when Justice Jansen took quite a narrow view on enrichment and claims in terms thereof.

Jester Pools erected a swimming pool on a property under the impression that it was contracted by the owner, whilst in fact they contracted with a third person. The court ruled that the building contractor had no claim against the actual owner of the property based on enrichment either calculated on the increase in value of the property or the actual expense of the swimming pool. Jester Pools had to accept the loss and pay the legal cost of the owner as well.

The keeper of his “brother’s” goods, a person or entity thus acting on behalf or in the interest of another, in certain circumstances, could incur costs or expenses in the process. The recovery of these costs or expenses can be problematic.

Depending on the facts, a claim can be instituted either on enrichment (conditio indebiti or conditio sine causa) or based on unauthorised administration (negotiorum gestio).

Any claim based on enrichment, whether conditio indebiti or conditio sine causa conditio indebiti or conditio sine causa each has four, almost similar essential elements a claimant must fulfil to be successful.

In short, the elements entail enrichment of the other party at the expense of the keeper, impoverishment of the keeper and absence of justification thereof.

A claim in terms of the negotiorum gestio also has four essential elements.

Firstly, the affairs managed by the keeper must be those of another. The keeper can be a company, trust or a natural person and the affairs that of a company, trust or a natural person.

Secondly, the other must be oblivious of the fact that his affairs are being managed.

Thirdly, and a very important element, is that the keeper must have had the intention to manage the affairs of another.

Fourthly, the management of the affairs should be conducted in a reasonable manner. Even if the management was unsuccessful, the caretaker shall have a claim against the other. However, if the management was unreasonable, the caretaker will have no claim.

To succeed in a claim based on the negotiorum gestio, our builder will have to fulfil all of the above essential requirements. The contractual obligations between the builder and the corporation negate the intention to manage and the reasonableness of thereof. In terms of the Couws v Jester Pools judgement the builder will be limited to a claim in terms of the contract, with the risk of an empty judgement with little if any hope to recover any of the outstanding amount.

Luckily for our builder, thirty years after the Couws v Jester Pools matter, two judgments have paved the way for an extension of the negotiorum gestio or unauthorised administration on behalf of a third party by the “extended” actio negotiorum gestorum or the actio negotiorum utilis. This development specifically will assist the building contractor as he had no intention to manage the affairs of another and/or where the reasonableness of his actions is questioned.

In ABSA Bank Limited t/a Bankfin v Stander t/a CAW Paneelkloppers 1998 (1) SA 939 (C) Van Zyl J detailed the development of South African enrichment law. The judgment will provide any reader thereof with a cursory yet detailed background knowledge of this specific area in our law.

This judgment extends the reach of the enrichment law in that, although a general enrichment action is still not accepted or proposed, the holes caused by Couws v Jester Pools are at least plugged.

The second judgement, McCarthy Retail Limited v Shortdistance Carriers CC, delivered by Schutz JA on 16 March 2001 under case number 110/1990, the Supreme Court of Appeal again carefully considered the position. The judgment refers to the predicament of our builder, but does not make a ruling which would constitute applicable case law. The comments do take the position further and clarifies the case law noted.

The perceived injustice of the Couws v Jester Pools-judgment has been rectified.

The last two cases combined, does open an alternative claim to our building contractor against the actual registered owners of the stand on which the residence has been erected.

In the event of the corporation not being able to fulfil its payment obligations towards our building contractor, the owners of the stand might just find themselves indebted to their keeper.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

Hondebyt en die Finansiële risiko vir die eienaar

article2nlNa aanleiding van ‘n toename in die soort sake is dit van belang om die risiko’s aan eienaars uit te wys, hoe aanspreeklikheid ontstaan en hoe om hierdie risiko’s te ondervang.

Wanneer ‘n persoon deur ‘n hond gebyt word kan die beseerde persoon aksie instel teen die eienaar van die hond vir die verhaal van skade. Skuld aan die kant van die eienaar is nie ‘n vereiste vir aanspreeklikheid om te vestig teen die eienaar nie.

Indien die vereistes wat hieronder behandel word aan voldoen word is dit nie vir die beseerde persoon nodig om enige skuld aan die kant van die eienaar te bewys nie. Selfs al was die eienaar dus nie nalatig in enige opsig kan hy/sy steeds aanspreeklik gehou word vir beserings of skade veroorsaak deur die hond.

Wat moet bewys word ten einde met so eis te slaag?

Vir die beseerde persoon om te slaag met ‘n eis moet die volgende bewys word:

  • Die persoon wat gedagvaar word moes die eienaar van die dier gewees het toe die voorval plaasgevind het. Die blote feit dat ‘n persoon in beheer van ‘n dier was is nie genoegsaam nie;
  • Die dier moet ‘n huishoudelike dier wees wat gevolglik enige wilde diere uitsluit;
  • Die beserings was veroorsaak in omstandighede waar die dier strydig met sy eie natuur opgetree het. Die dier moes gevolglik anders opgetree het as wat verwag kan word van ‘n wel opgeleide dier van dieselfde soort. Ons howe ag ‘n hond wat byt se optrede as strydig met sy aard. Waar die hond egter deur ander faktore ontlok word of geterg word, word dit nie geag dat die hond strydig met sy natuur optree nie;
  • Die persoon wat beseer is moet regmatig teenwoordig wees waar skade veroorsaak was. ‘n Persoon wat dus onregmatig ‘n perseel betree behoort in normale omstandighede nie te slaag met ‘n aksie nie.

Verwere beskikbaar vir die eienaar van die hond

Alhoewel skuld aan die kant van die eienaar van die hond nie ‘n vereiste is, is daar ‘n verskeidenheid verwere beskikbaar aan die eienaar in die geval van ’n eis vir skade. Die verwere sluit die volgende in:

  • Skuld aan die kant van die beseerde persoon. Byvoorbeeld, die beseerde persoon het die dier geprovokeer deur die hom te slaan, voorwerpe na hom te gooi of deur die dier te terg; 
  • ‘n Derde party het die skade veroorsaak. Byvoorbeeld, ‘n derde persoon provokeer die hond, maak die hond seer of terg die hond met die gevolg dat die hond die beseerde persoon aanval; 
  • Provokasie deur ‘n ander dier. Byvoorbeeld, waar ‘n ander hond die eienaar se hond aanval en die eienaar se hond dan die beseerde persoon aanval;
  • Toestemming tot benadeling. Waar die beseerde persoon uitdruklik of stilswyend deur sy/haar optrede toestem tot benadeling. Dit sal byvoorbeeld, die geval wees waar die persoon gebyt word maar vooraf gewaarsku was teen die hond en waar die persoon byvoorbeeld, verklaar dat hy/sy nie bang is nie. ‘n Hof behoort te bevind dat die persoon toegestem het tot moontlike benadeling en behoort so aksie nie te slaag nie.

Watter skade kan geëis word

Met ‘n hondebyt kan ‘n wye verskeidenheid skade geëis word van die eienaar wat ondermeer pyn en lyding, verlies aan lewensgenietinge, ongeskiktheid en verminking, mediese uitgawes reeds aangegaan asook toekomstige mediese uitgawes, verlies aan inkomste insluit.

Selfs ‘n persoon wat ‘n aanval op ‘n ander waarneem kon emosionele trauma beleef het en dit dan van die eienaar van die dier eis as skade.

Dit is gevolglik belangrik vir die eienaar van ‘n hond om bewus te wees van die potensiële aanspreeklikhede vir die optrede van sy dier. Die aanspreeklikheid kan ernstige finansiële gevolge inhou en eienaars moet voorsorg tref om hulle honde te beheer en veilig binne hulle eiendom te hou.


Meeste korttermynversekeringspolisse maak voorsiening vir hierdie tipe aanspreeklikhede teen ‘n minimale koste. Neem die tyd om die dekking met jou makelaar of versekeraar te bespreek. Eise van die aard kan astronomiese proporsies aanneem en jou versekeraar kan jou help om jou teen die risiko te verskans.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien

Dog Bites and the financial risk it poses to owners

article2nlHaving received a number of matters that ended up in costly litigation we decided to point out certain risks to dog owners, how liability arises, and how to manage such risks and protect one against potential liabilities.

Where a person is bitten and injured by a dog the injured person can institute action against the owner of the dog to recover his/her damages suffered.

Guilt on the part of the owner is not a requirement for liability to attach. If the requirements discussed below are met, the injured person need not prove any guilt on the part of the owner of the dog. Thus, irrespective of whether the owner of the dog was negligent or not, the owner can still be held liable for harm caused by his animal.

What must be proven for a successful claim?

In order to succeed with a claim for damages, the injured person must show that:

  • The person being sued is the owner of the relevant animal at the time of the incident. The mere fact that a person is in control of an animal is not sufficient;
  • The animal is a domesticated animal, which by implication excludes wild animals;
  • Injury was caused by the actions of the animal acting contrary to the nature of its kind. The animal must have acted differently to what could be expected of a proper and well-mannered animal of its kind. A dog that bites is deeded by our Courts to act contrary to the nature of its kind. Where the animal does not acted spontaneously but acts due to incitement or other external factors such as a dog that is being teased etc., the animal does not act contrary to its nature when it reacts aggressively;
  • The injured person must have a right to be present at the place where the damage was caused. Where a person enters the property of another without invitation, the person will not be able to succeed with this action because the injured person was unlawfully present on the property.

Defences available to the owner of the dog

Although guilt on the side of the owner is not a pre-requisite, a number of defenses are available to the owner of the animal in the case of a claim for damages. Defenses available to the owner include the following:

  • Guilty conduct on the part of the injured person. For example, where the injured person provoked the animal by hitting, throwing objects at or teasing the animal;
  • Causing of damage by a guilty third party. For example, where another person provokes the dog or hurts or teases the animal with the result that the injured person is attacked;
  • Provocation by another animal. For example, where another dog attacks the owner’s dog and the owner’s dog in the attack bites the injured person.;
  • Consent to prejudice. Where the injured person expressly or tacitly through his/her conduct consents to prejudice. For example, where a person is bitten by a dog but was pre-warned against the dog and then indicates that he/she is not afraid of dogs – “the dog won’t bite me” – a court should find that the injured person tacitly consented to the prejudice and would the person not able to claim damages from the owner.

What damages can be claimed?

Where a dog bites a person, the person usually suffers damage and the person can claim for a wide range of damages, including for pain and suffering, loss of life enjoyment, disfiguration or disability, medical expenses incurred and to be incurred in future, loss of income etc. All of these damages are in principle recoverable from the owner of the dog.

Even a person that witnesses the attack on another, may as a result of the emotional trauma suffered (and upon proving).

It is important for owners of dogs to take note of their potential liability for the actions of their animals. This liability may be extensive and owners are encouraged to be serious about the proper control of their animals and to keep the animals within the confines of their property.

Short Term Insurance

Most short term householder policies will make provision for liability such as this at a minimal cost to the policyholder. Take the time to discuss this with your broker or your insurer. Make sure that adequate insurance is in place. A claim such as this can amount to significant proportions. Your insurer can however help you cater for such a risk.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

Sekere riglyne vir boedelbeplanning

article1nl-Die hoofdoel met boedelbeplanning is om toe te sien dat soveel as moontlik van jou geakkumuleerde rykdom vir jou eie voordeel en voorsiening gemaak word vir die maksimum voordeel van jou afhanklikes by jou dood.

“Boedelbeplanning” word gedefinieer as die proses waarin ‘n program geskep en bestuur word om:

  • Jou bates tydens jou leeftyd in stand te hou, te vermeerder en te beskerm;
  • Die mees effektiewe en voordelige verdeling daarvan aan opvolgende generasie te verseker.

Daar bestaan ‘n algemene wanindruk dat boedelbeplanning net handel met die maak van ‘n testament of om jou sake so te reël dat boedelbelasting bespaar word.

Elke persoon se boedel is uniek en dus behoort die struktuur volgens hy/sy eie unieke behoeftes en doelwitte opgestel te word.

Die tekort aan likiditeit by afsterwe kan uiteraard baie druk plaas op die oorblywende familie van ‘n oorledene, omdat die tekort aan kontant kan veroorsaak dat die eksekuteur bates sal moet verkoop om kontant te genereer.

Likiditeit beteken daar moet genoeg kontant beskikbaar wees om:

  • Boedelbelasting te betaal;
  • Boedeluitgawes en administrasie koste te betaal;
  • Voorsiening te maak vir belasting verpligtinge wat met dood mag ontstaan soos kapitaalwinsbelasting.

Tegnies word die boedel gevries totdat die Meester van die Hooggeregshof eksekuteursbriewe uitgereik het.

Afsterwe sonder ‘n geldige testament, beteken dat jou boedel intestaat mee gehandel sal word, en die wetgewing oor intestate erfopvolging sal geld. Die wet op Intestate erfopvolging bepaal dat die langslewende eggenoot erf die grootste gedeelte van R125 000.00 of ‘n kindsdeel. ‘n Kindsdeel word bepaal deur die totale waarde van die boedel deur die hoeveelheid kinders en die oorlewende eggenoot te deel. Waar partye binne gemeenskap van goed getroud is, gaan een helfte van die boedel na die langslewende eggenoot as gevolg van die huwelik , en die ander helfte vererf volgens die intestate erfopvolging. Indien daar geen oorlewende eggenoot of afhanklikes is nie , word die boedel verdeel tussen die ouers en kinders. Waar daar geen ouers of kinders is nie word dit verdeel tussen die naaste bloedverwante.

‘n Eksekuteur is geregtig op die volgende vergoeding:

  • ‘n Ooreengekome vergoeding in die testament; of
  • 3.5% van die bruto bate waarde; en
  • 6% op die inkomste wat na dood die boedel toeval.

Eksekuteurs vergoeding is onderhewig aan BTW waar die eksekuteur so geregistreer is.

Indien die waarde van die boedel meer as R3,5 miljoen rand beloop, is boedelbelasting betaalbaar op die balans meer as die R3,5 miljoen, met die uitsondering van eiendom wat aan ‘n langslewende eggenoot bemaak is, aangesien dit vrygestel is van boedelbelasting en/of kapitaalwinsbelasting.

Artikel 3 van die Wet op die Onderverdeling van Landbougrond, verhoed die onderverdeling van landbougrond, en die registrasie van onverdeelde aandele in meer as een persoon se naam en is dit onderhewig aan die Minister se goedkeuring.

‘n Minderjarige is ‘n kind jonger as 18 jaar, en enige bemakings aan so persoon word in die Voogdyfonds gehou, wat onder die administrasie van die Meester van die Hooggeregshof val. Hierdie fondse is nie vrylik beskikbaar nie en word gewoonlik belê teen onder markverwante rente koerse. Dit is dus aan te bevele dat voorsiening vir minderjarige kinders gemaak moet word deur ‘n trust.

Die Wet op Beslote Korporasies bepaal dat onderhewig aan ‘n samewerkingsooreenkoms, waar ‘n erfgenaam ‘n ledebelang moet erf (in terme van ‘n testament), moet die toestemming van die oorblywende lede (indien enige ) verkry word. Indien toestemming nie gegee word binne 28 dae nadat die versoek is deur die eksekuteur nie, is die eksekuteur verplig om die ledebelang te verkoop.

Artikel 3(3)(d) van die Boedelbelastingwet bepaal dat waar bates aan ‘n trust oorgedra word gedurende die boedelbeplanner se leeftyd, maar hy/sy as trustee die mag behou wat hom/haar sou toelaat om eensydiglik van trust bates ontslae te raak vir sy eie of sy begunstigdes se voordeel, dan mag dit wees dat sulke bates beskou kan word as sy/haar eie en deel sal vorm van sy/haar boedel vir doeleindes van boedelbelasting.

Waar partye getroud is binne gemeenskap van goed het die oorlewende eggenoot ‘n eis vir 50% van die gekombineerde boedel, wat die werklike waarde van die boedel met 50% verminder. Die boedel word verdeel nadat al die skuld in die oorlye boedel betaal is (uitgesluit begrafniskoste en boedelbelasting, omdat hierdie verpligtinge van die bestorwe boedel is en nie die gesamentlike boedel nie). Slegs helfte van die bates in so boedel kan gevolglik bemaak word.

Polisse wat uitgesluit is van insluiting vir doeleindes van boedelbelasting is, koop en verkoop, sleutelman polisse, en daardie polisse gesedeer aan ‘n eggenoot of kind in terme van ʼn huwelikskontrak.

Die opbrengs van lewensversekerings polisse kan gebruik word om:

  • Inkomste te genereer om na afhanklikes om te sien terwyl met die boedel gehandel word;
  • Boedeluitgawes te betaal, begrafniskoste, inkomstebelasting, boedel administrasie en boedelbelasting.

Die opbrengs van alle Suid-Afrikaanse “huishoudelike “ polisse uitgeneem op die beplanner se lewe, en waar daar geen begunstigde genomineer is nie, sal binne die bestorwe boedel val.

Waar ‘n begunstigde wel genomineer is op die polis, sal die opbrengs geagte bates in die boedel te wees vir boedelbelasting doeleindes, afgesien daarvan dat die opbrengs direk betaal word aan die begunstigde (onderhewig aan die gedeeltelike uitsluitings gebaseer op die polis premies).

Sekere bates in ‘n bestorwe boedel is uitgesluit van kapitaalwinsbelasting.

  • Bates vir persoonlike gebruik (met sekere uitsonderings);
  • Bates bemaak aan die langslewende eggenoot;
  • Bates bemaak openbare voordeel organisasie;
  • Die opbrengs van lewens versekerings polisse, belange in voorsorg of annuïteit fondse, belange in pensioenfondse ;
  • Die eerste R2 miljoen ten opsigte van die primêre woning;
  • Die eerste R750, 000 bates ten opsigte van klein sake ondernemings;
  • Geldeenhede, uitgesluit goud en platinum munte.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien