Legislation & Legal

06 Jun 2022

DIGITAL SIGNATURES – AN UPDATE ON WHETHER WE CAN RELY ON ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

May we use a stylus pen to sign an OTP, if we apply the signature on an electronic tablet?

The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (the ECTA) defines an electronic signature in section 1 thereof as ‘data attached to, incorporated in, or logically associated with other data and which is intended by the user to serve as a signature.’ Section 13 goes further to state that “Where the signature of a person is required by law and such law does not specify the type of signature, that requirement in relation to a data message is met only if an advanced electronic signature is used. (Advanced signatures are then defined with reference to Section 37 which does not help this present discussion at all). (2) Subject to subsection (I), an electronic signature is not without legal force and effect merely on the grounds that it is in electronic form. The purpose of ECTA is to enable solutions to scenarios where the validity or authenticity of a signature can be achieved, without necessitating in person, the actual signature of a document.

However, ECTA expressly states that it does not apply to sales of immovable property under the Alienation of Land Act of 1981 (ALA).

The ALA again, requires all sale agreements of land to be signed.

The question that now arises regularly is whether a signature with a stylus pen, on an electronic tablet, is acceptable. Or does this amount to an electronic signature? With reference to the definition of an e-signature, you will have noted that we underlined some words in the definition above – data attached to, incorporated in, or logically associated with other data and which is intended by the user to serve as a signature.

If you go onto ADOBE for example, type in your name and the computer then asks you to choose one of several pretty fonts to apply a signature which the computer generates, one cannot deny, that this is a “mark” you make using data, which is “intended” to serve as a signature. But where you apply your actual signature to a document using a tablet – this remains your actual signature, doesn’t it?

Several High Court and Appeal Court decisions up until now, have consistently held that a signature for the sale of immovable property, means a “wet ink” signature. This means your hand has to actually hold a pen or pencil to make a signature. Even a thumb print or an “X” can serve as a signature, but can one argue that the application of a “stylus” signature on an electronic tablet, which is then transmitted to a document, is tantamount to a “wet ink” signature?

A signature is nothing more than your “chosen mark”. A tablet signature is after all your actual signature. You just choose to attach it, using electronic means, instead of using actual “wet ink”. There was a decision in the Eastern Cape recently which held that it was acceptable for a signatory to use a mobile phone app, to apply a photo of his actual signature, onto a sale agreement for land. The court was satisfied that if that is how he chose to apply his actual signature, that he was free to do so, given that it was still his actual signature – and not a computer generated, image, “intended to be” his signature. The door therefore appears to have been opened to argue this point, but, because this was a single judge judgment (which was not appealed against to our knowledge) it is not entirely authoritative.

To answer the question – tread lightly for now and stick to wet ink as far as possible until we have more case law on this topic!

06 Jun 2022

APPLICATIONS FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF HOLDING A FIDELITY FUND CERTIFICATE

It has come to our attention that the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (the PPRA) has issued a pro forma application form that Property Practitioners (PP) who have not yet received their fidelity Fund Certificates (FFCs) can complete and submit, which allows property practitioners to be exempted from holding a FFC. The reason cited on the application reads as follows: “I am advised that the PPRA is currently in a transitional phase in implementing the Property Practitioners Act 22/2019 and the registration and issuing of FFCs to all practitioners. In the interim I apply for an exemption from the requirement to be issued with an FFC in terms of S48(1) of the Act, until 31/8/2022 to allow for time to register and obtain an FFC.”

A copy of the application form can be found HERE.

The question that springs to mind is this: Is it even legal and what are the consequences of such a step?

Section 48(1) of the Act reads as follows:

“No person or entity may act as a property practitioner unless, in addition to any other requirements provided for in or under this Act
(a) he or she or it has been issued with a Fidelity Fund certificate contemplated in section 47; or

(b) if he or she or it employs any other person as a property practitioner, that person has also been issued with a Fidelity Fund certificate contemplated in section 47.”

The holding of a FFC by a property practitioner is accordingly mandatory and always has been. Section 4 of the Act does give the PPRA the power to exempt any person from compliance with any provision of the Act, but this is only after careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, including whether the exemption “is likely to impact negatively on the interests of the general public”; whether consumers rights and interests will continue to be protected; and whether the exemption would “defeat the objects of the Act”.

Our submission is that the proposed exemption falls to be dismissed on all these grounds, given that this exemption is for any PP and not just maybe a select few. The very purpose of a FFC is to not only to ensure that all PPs are registered with the PPRA but it also provides valuable statutory insurance for members of the public who might be the victims of theft of trust money by a PP. In section 34(1)(a) this insurance is limited to cover the theft of trust monies by a property practitioner “who was in possession of a FFC at the time of the theft”. The Regulations also only provide for exemptions from having to have a Trust Account. It does not appear to us that the intention of Section 4 was to allow the PPRA to exempt a PP from trading without an FFC. That would be unheard of. The question then arises as to whether the Fidelity Fund would be entitled or obliged to compensate a member of the public, who is the victim of a theft by a property practitioner who had been exempted from holding a FFC. Our opinion is that the Fidelty Fund might well be legally obliged to follow the Act and to repudiate such a claim. That said however, we have now also received written confirmation from the PPRA that we as conveyancers may pay out commission to PPs who don’t have FFCs provided they can provide us with a Letter of Exemption from the PPRA. One must of course also bear in that the Act allows a PP to be “deemed” to be in possession of a FFC if the PPRA has not issues one within the prescribed 30 (or 50, if the PPRA has allowed itself the additional 20) working days, after an application has been filed. For all we know they intend to limit these exemptions to those applicants. We must then also assume that this exemption implies that sellers may not refuse to pay commission nor may they claim commission back once it has been paid, and that the Fidelity Fund will honour any claims where such PPs do run off with trust funds. We certainly hope so!

06 Jun 2022

DEADLINE ALERT – ASBESTOS REGULATIONS – WHAT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN FOR PROPERTY PRACTITIONERS AND SELLERS/LANDLORDS?

It has come to our attention that an asbestos inspection company is sending emails to estate agents stating that it is now mandatory for sellers and landlords to “disclose the presence of any asbestos materials in a property, before entering into a new sale or lease agreement”. The article also states that the Property Practitioner Act requires sellers and landlords to disclose the existence of all defects. It therefore suggests that the mere existence of asbestos, is a defect, and that this must now be disclosed. The author relies on the recently published Asbestos Abatement Regulations to substantiate this view. (Read here to view our previous publications on this topic – Asbestos roofing article

We disagree with the views expressed in this article.

The regulations do not in any way oblige sellers or landlords to disclose the mere presence of asbestos. The regulations only require owners of properties which have asbestos, and which may expose workers to a risk of exposure, to have it inspected, or what to do, if they wish to treat or remove asbestos. Furthermore, it is established law that where a purchaser purchases voetstoets, the seller can only possibly be held liable for material, latent defects he actually knew of and fraudulently withheld at the time of sale, and which the purchaser could not determine himself upon a reasonable inspection.

There is not and never has been a duty to “disclose all defects”. And these PPA certainly does not change this as is alleged.

The mere fact that asbestos happens to form part of the roofing for example does not amount to a defect in any manner or form, which is what this article suggests. Assuming there is asbestos and assuming the property has been inspected, and that the asbestos has been found to be a threat, then this may need to be disclosed as a defect. At best, agents may want to possibly add some further questions to their condition reports, along the lines of:

Does the property have any asbestos that you are aware of which could also expose a worker to any risks associated with asbestos?

If so, has the property been inspected in terms of the Asbestos Abatement Regulations and can you provide a copy of the report?

If the seller cannot answer these questions to a purchaser’s satisfaction, then it is for a purchaser to decide whether to make an offer or to attach any further conditions in this regard, if so inclined.

We hope this will clarify any confusion which this article may cause.

24 Aug 2020

NEW RULES FOR LANDLORDS AND TENANTS UNDER LEVEL 2 LOCKDOWN

To regulate our behaviour under Level 2 of our lockdown, chapter 5 was added to the current lockdown regulations on 16 August 2020. Sections 53 and 54 in this new chapter, dealing with “Eviction” and “Rental Housing”, makes for interesting reading.

We all know that the Rental Housing Act governs residential leasing in South Africa, and that the Rental Housing Tribunals have been established in terms if this law. We should also know that there are regulations that have been published under the Rental Housing Act to outlaw unfair practices. These Unfair Practice Regulations have now been supplemented by the Level 2 Regulations.

In section 53 of the new lockdown regulations, the rules for evictions have been amended again. A court now has the power to suspend or stay an order for eviction after considering the impact of the order on the tenant, how the State of Disaster has affected them, the relative prejudice to the parties, and also whether the landlord “has taken all reasonable steps in good faith to make alternative arrangements” including payment arrangements, to avoid the eviction.

The new lockdown regulation also states that eviction orders will not be able to be acted on until after the state of disaster, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

In section 54 of the new lockdown regulations, the duty of the landlord to ensure the leased premises are supplied with basic services has been emphasised. It is now a deemed unfair practice if the services to the leased premises are terminated without the tenant first being given notice, and an opportunity to make representations. It is also a deemed unfair practice for a landlord not to make arrangements to reach an agreement regarding alternative payment arrangements, so as to make provision for the ongoing provision of basic services to the leased premises.

This regulation seems to place a duty on the landlord to negotiate not only with the tenant regarding the payment for services, but also with the municipality, in circumstances where the Landlord is also unable to pay the bills.

Section 54 goes on to provide that, if the tenant falls onto arrears as a result of the disaster, landlords are not allowed to levy any penalty, apart from interest, in respect of these late payments.

Most notably, in terms of section 54, it is now deemed to be an unfair practice if a landlord fails “to engage reasonably and in good faith” to make arrangements for the effects of the disaster, or if the landlord acts unreasonably or oppressively having regard to the prevailing circumstances. This regulation again emphasizes the obligation on the landlord to enter into negotiations regarding rental payments, either to negotiate a reduction of the rent or to agree on payment holidays.

The message here is clear. Landlords need to act sympathetically towards tenants whose ability to perform in terms of their leases has been negatively affected by the disaster, and they need to actively engage with tenants before attempting to enforce their rights. (Landlords should also retain records of these attempts so that these negotiations can be proved in court). The irony of the matter however lies in the fact that it is not the illness that has caused the economic meltdown that has destroyed the livelihood of many tenants, but rather the same regulations that the government now attempts to use to ameliorate their plight.

Also in section 54, the authority of the Rental Housing Tribunal has been extended to enable it to grant urgent orders to restore possession of rental premises to tenants who have been unlawfully evicted, or to restore services to a premises where they have been cut off, without first affording the Landlord the opportunity to be heard. Previously this authority to grant orders restoring possession was vested only in the courts. The Landlord against whom such an order is made can then convene a hearing of the Tribunal, on 24 hours’ notice, to give their side of the story.

Interesting times indeed.

Deon Welz

Miltons Matsemela Inc.

12 Jun 2020

UPDATE ON HIGH COURT APPLICATION AGAINST THE CAPE TOWN DEEDS OFFICE

Further to our Newsflash earlier this week, where we advised that the Cape Town Attorneys Association had launched an urgent application against the Cape Town Deeds Office, to address the intermittent closures due to alleged Covid scares, we have just received a copy of the High Court Order. It stipulates that the Deeds Office “shall reopen on Monday 15 June 2020 and resume its full operations immediately, subject to social distancing and related health protocols”.

Regarding all the other issues that were raised in the Application and where further relief was sought against the Deeds Office, the matter was postponed to next week Friday 19 June 2020 for argument and to allow for the further exchange of affidavits, and “Heads of Argument”, by the advocates.

We will keep you updated.

Warmest regards,
Miltons Matsemela Inc

11 Jun 2020

CASE LAW UPDATE: FFC delayed? You can still claim your commission!

ESTATE AGENTS MAY NOW CLAIM COMMISSION WHEN THE ISSUE OF THEIR FIDELITY FUND CERTIFICATE IS DELAYED

THE DECISION IN SIGNATURE REAL ESTATE v CHARLES EDWARDS PROPERTIES OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

We all know that estate agents cannot lawfully trade and cannot claim commission if they do not hold a valid Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC). But what if the FFC was not issued because of a lapse by the Estate Agency Affairs Board?

In January 2019 we reported on a judgment of the Cape Town High Court, where the relevant sections (26 and 34A) of the Estate Agency Affairs Act were interpreted in a very strict way. In this case, Signature Real Estate was deprived of their right to recover their commission when they did not have a valid Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC), even though they had done everything to obtain their FFC in good time, and a FFC had even been issued, but in the wrong name. Everyone accepted that it was the inefficiency of the Estate Agency Affairs Board (EAAB) that had prevented them from being compliant.

Herewith a LINK to our article on that judgment.

In a nutshell: Signature had applied for their FFC, but because of an error at the EAAB the FFC was only issued some months into the new financial year. Prior to the correct FFC being issued, Signature assisted in the conclusion of a lease agreement with another agency (B) and the full commission was paid to B. B then refused to pay Signature’s share. B’s defense was that Signature was not in possession of a valid FFC at the time the commission was earned.

Technically B was correct, and the Cape Town High Court at that time ruled that section 34 of the Estate Agency Affairs Act, as read with section 26, means strictly what it says: No FFC, no commission, full stop!

We are pleased to report however that yesterday, 10 June 2020, the decision of the Cape Town High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court of Appeal and Signature is now legally entitled to be paid their commission.

In finding for Signature the Court held that to interpret Sections 26 and 34A so strictly, so as to refuse an agency’s claim for commission, where the delay in issuing the FFC lay squarely on the shoulders of the EAAB, was contrary to the spirit and object of our Bill of Rights, more specifically the rights enshrined in our Constitution that entitle us to engage freely in a trade, occupation or profession. Furthermore, the Court found that the strict, literal interpretation of the relevant sections in the circumstances of this case, was not consistent with the purpose that the law was intended to achieve.

This is a very positive judgment for estate agents, MANY of whom struggle to get their FFC’s issued in time due to the inefficiency of the EAAB. The judgment has recognized that to refuse a claim for payment of commission by an agent, who has submitted a proper application for an FFC in good time, and who has not received it simply because of inefficient administration, is contrary to that agent’s constitutional right to trade.

This judgement is long overdue, and we are extremely pleased to be able to share this with you all.

On a cautionary note, the judgment did emphasize that the facts of this case did fall within a “narrow compass” and that the decision was made on the basis that Signature was considered to be in possession of a valid FFC at the relevant time. The judgment also went on the mention that the decision should not be seen as an invitation to adopt a liberal approach to the application of section 34A of the Act, which will obviously be strictly applied in other circumstances. If your application was late, or defective in any way, or if you have done nothing to get errors in the FFC corrected, this judgment will not come to your assistance.

Warmest regards

Miltons Matsemela
Robert Krautkramer & Deon Welz

10 Jun 2020

ATTORNEYS TO TAKE DEEDS OFFICE TO COURT

By now you will all have heard that the Cape Town Deeds Office has closed yet again, because one of their staff have allegedly come into c ontact with someone who is allegedly Covid-19 positive. As such and for now, our registrations are yet again on hold and we can again not predict with any certainty when our transfers and bonds will register.

Yesterday, the Cape Town Attorneys Association (CTAA) sent a letter to the Deeds Office demanding that it reopen, because we are all of the view that there are no proper grounds for a complete closure. In their letter the CTAA threatened to bring an urgent High Court application to address the matter if no positive response was received. The Deeds Office has not responded.

Accordingly, the CTAA, as well as the Tygerberg Attorneys Association and the Institute for Estate Agents, are busy preparing an urgent application to Court which is scheduled to be heard on Friday 12 June 2020. The chances are however that the matter will be postponed to a date next week.

As part of the CTAA, Miltons Matsemela agrees with this approach and we are contributing towards the costs of these court proceedings. We believe that there is now too much at stake for us just to sit back while our business and the businesses of our partners in property are failing.

We will keep you posted on developments.

Warmest regards,
Miltons Matsemela Inc

10 June 2020

03 Jun 2020

LOCKDOWN REGULATIONS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In a judgment delivered on 2 June 2020 Judge Norman Davis of the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has declared the vast majority of the regulations governing the Level 4 and 3 lockdowns as being unconstitutional.

Herewith a brief summary of the judgement:

In essence, the applicants wanted to have the entire state of disaster declared unconstitutional. After hearing argument and reading the affidavits that were filed, the court held that there was enough evidence to show that the decision to declare the State of Disaster was perfectly justifiable, and that the limitation that this placed on all of our human rights was in line with our constitution.

The applicants then also asked the court to declare the lockdown regulations (Levels 3 and 4) unconstitutional. Here the court confirmed that the final decision making power in determining what measures are to be implemented when dealing with such a situation lies exclusively in the hands of the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Dr Dlamini Zuma, who must exercise these powers after consultation with the other cabinet members. However, the power is then limited to decisions which will assist and protect the public, provide relief to the public, protect property, prevent or combat disruption, or deal with the disruptive nature of the disaster.

The court also confirmed that in deciding on any of these issues, there must be a rational connection between such decisions and the purpose for which such a power was conferred.

As such, the court was required to test the rationale behind the limitations that have been imposed under Levels 4 and then 3, and to ask itself whether they reasonably and justifiably infringe on our constitutional rights.

The court took serious issue with many of the limitations. For example, it questioned the rationale behind the regulation that prevented someone from visiting and supporting a dying family member during lockdown (unless they were the carer), but when the family member has died, 50 people armed with copies of his death certificate may travel from all across South Africa to bury him! In another example the court noted the irrationality of the situation where a single mother who works in a salon, and who would maintain all the required health and safety protocols in her business, was prevented from earning a living to support her family when she can see people huddled together traveling in a taxi.

The judge pointed out many other irrational aspects in the regulations.

According to the judge, the only regulations which were justifiable were the regulations prohibiting evictions, prohibiting initiation practices, and closing certain public places, such as night clubs and casinos. The closing of our international borders as provided for in the current regulations was also justified.

The court also briefly reflected on the prohibition of tobacco sales but as this is at the center of another pending high court application, it refused to express a view and left the matter to be decided by that court. That case will be heard later this month, and we are confident that those regulations will also be shot down.

In a nutshell the court found that (save for the few instances referred to above), there is no rational connection between the regulations that have been passed and the and the results they are intended to achieve. The regulations were therefore found to place unreasonable limitations on our rights and were accordingly unconstitutional.

The minister has now been given 2 weeks to draft new regulations that will be in line with our constitution.

So where to from here?

The government can appeal the decision. They can also ask for more time in which to draft revised regulations. Whatever happens, the current regulations will continue in force for at least the next 14 days.

Coincidentally, in terms of the Disaster Management Act, the current State of Disaster terminates automatically after 3 months and this date coincides with the end of this 14-day period. We suspect therefore that the whole playing field will have changed by that date and we will in any event require new regulations to be in place.

Let’s hope that these new rules will be drafted with more consistency and with more emphasis on the preservation of our rights as enshrined in the constitution.

Until then, our advice is the following: Keep Calm – and let’s just carry on for now!

We will keep you posted.

Warmest regards
Miltons Matsemela

03 June 2020

29 May 2020

WORKPLACE SAFETY PROTOCOL FOR ALL ESTATE AGENTS UNDER LEVEL 3 LOCKDOWN

To start work again on 1 June 2020 all estate agencies will have to adopt special protocols which will regulate activities both in the office and when you are out and about. To make it easier for you we have prepared a standard document that you can apply in your business. Just click HERE and brand and complete the document for your own use. The processes and procedures are self-explanatory.

We hope this will ease your transition back to the office and provide you with some peace of mind.

Let’s work together to beat this virus!

Warm regards

Miltons Matsemela Inc

29 May 2020

LEVEL 3 LOCKDOWN – THE LATEST REGULATIONS EXPLAINED

In our short newsflash regarding the Level 3 Lockdown, published yesterday, we spread the good news about getting back to work. If you want to know more, what follows are the highlights (and lowlights) of the new regulations dated 28 May 2020. If you want to read the regulations yourself, here is a LINK.

THE MOVE TO LEVEL 3 AND THE CREATION OF HOTSPOTS

1. While the whole country will be moving to Level 3 on Monday 1 June 2020, it is clear that government sees the possibility of reclassifying certain “hotspot” areas at higher levels should they think this is necessary. Cape Town is one of the areas at risk, as it has now been officially included in a list of these “hotspots”. Also included in the list are the West Coast, Overberg and Cape Winelands district municipality.

WHO CAN TRADE?

2. All businesses can open, except for the businesses listed in Table 2 to the regulations. Included in the list of businesses than may still not operate are restaurants serving food for consumption at the point of sale; pubs; Airbnb type operations; domestic passenger air travel for leisure; conferences and events, including sports. Also prohibited from operating are personal care services such as hairdressers; certain public transport and education services; and tourist attractions, casinos and places offering entertainment activities. It is notable that all restaurants serving take-aways will now be allowed to operate. Businesses that can open can carry out all the functions of their business.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

3. The restriction on movement has been substantially relaxed. We are all allowed to travel to and from work, and for work purposes. We can also go out to buy any goods and services that can be sold. As expected, going to a place of worship is also allowed, provided you do not cross provincial boundaries. Regrettably however members of the public can’t cross district or municipal or provincial boundaries to buy goods or obtain a service. This will make it difficult for estate agents to show properties to prospective purchasers or tenants not living in the same district.

4. The hours for exercise have also been extended from 6am until 6pm and it appears that the radius of 5km from your house, within which you had to do your exercise, has been done away with. Just don’t exercise in a group and maintain social distancing. Non-contact professional sports training and matches are also allowed, provided there are no spectators.

5. When in public places you must always wear a mask (or other homemade item) to cover your nose and mouth.

6. Movement out of hotspots (like the Cape Town Metropolitan area) is now also regulated, just like movement between districts, municipalities and provinces. If you are crossing these boundaries for work, you will need a permit issued by your employer. If you are doing so to move to a new house, or to care for an immediate family member, you will just need an affidavit in the form as set out in Form 6 of annexure A. The form of the affidavit can be viewed HERE. Usually an affidavit can be commissioned by any commissioner of oaths (like an attorney) but in Note 1 on the form it states that the affidavit can only be signed at a magistrate’s court or a police station. So much for streamlining the process!

7. Movement is also permitted for learners and students, for attending funerals, and for obtaining medical treatment.

8. The movement of children and for those attending funerals is regulated in detail in sections 34 and 35 of the latest regulations and, in most cases, will require a permit.

EVICTIONS

9. Evictions can be granted but must be suspended to take effect (at the earliest) on the last day of Alert Level 3. If there are compelling circumstances a court may make an order to allow the eviction to take place at an earlier date.

GATHERINGS

10. All gatherings remain prohibited, with certain exceptions, including:

religious gatherings, with a maximum number of 50 people. The number could be less depending on the space available, but never more than 50;
workplace gatherings for work;
funerals; and
professional non-contact sports matches, without spectators.

TRADITIONAL INITIATION PRACTICES

11. All traditional initiation practices are prohibited during Lockdown Level 3.

MOST NON-COMMERCIAL PLACES REMAIN CLOSED

12. These include gyms, sports grounds, fêtes, clubs, casinos, game reserves, bars, taverns, shebeens, theatres, cinemas, beaches and public parks. Hotels and guest houses must also stay closed unless they are providing accommodation for people under quarantine or providing essential services; or for people who are travelling for work.

SOCIAL VISITS

13. Social visits to places of detention, hospitals and residential facilities for the elderly are prohibited. Because we are prohibited from leaving our houses, except for specified purposes, social visits to friends’ homes are also not allowed.

INTERNATIONAL BORDERS CLOSED

14. Our international borders remain closed, except for diplomatic and humanitarian travel purposes.

TRANSPORTATION OF CARGO

15. The import and export of cargo, and the transporting of goods around the country, whether by road, rail, sea, or air is allowed.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

16. We can expect additional regulations as the various modes of public transport resume to facilitate the movement of people for work. This will include the resumption of domestic air travel for work.

THE SALE OF ALCOHOL

17. The sale of liquor will be allowed from Monday to Thursday between 9am and 5pm. No liquor may be sold on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Liquor, for consumption off the premises, will be able to be sold in the usual way from shops and bottle stores, and also from restaurants, bars, shebeens and taverns that hold a license to serve alcohol for consumption on the premises.

18. These liquor outlets can start stocking up for the inevitable demand from Friday 29 May 2020.

CIGARETTES AND TOBACCO

19. All tobacco products and e-cigarettes remain prohibited.

THE OPERATION OF BUSINESSES

20. Businesses with more than 100 staff members must limit the number of people at work by rotating staff, staggering working hours, working shifts, and working from home, to achieve social distancing.

21. Health protocols and social distancing measures must also be implemented for domestic workers.

22. Special measures must be adopted to protect those over 60 and those with co-morbidities.

23. The obligations on companies with more than 500 staff members are even more far reaching.

24. All sectors or industry bodies must develop specific protocols to limit the spread of COVID-19 in their sector. Here is a LINK to the protocols developed by REBOSA for application in the real estate sector.

COMPLIANCE OFFICER

25. Each business that can operate must appoint a Compliance Officer to develop and enforce workplace protocols to limit the spread of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

26. Government has clearly woken up to the need to start saving the economy, even if this is at the expense of more lives lost to COVID-19. This is a delicate balancing act, and whatever the government does they will be criticised by one group or another. Their response has not been perfect, and it never will be. That is why we need to consider our own personal response to the pandemic and make choices that fit in with our own circumstances, especially now that we are going to be working again.

27. Firstly, and most importantly, we need to protect others from ourselves. We do this by behaving as if we already have the virus and by acting in a way that prevents it from spreading.

28. Secondly, we need to analyse our own risk profile and act in way that takes this into account. The risk that we ultimately bear is the risk of death, so we need to take this extremely seriously.

29. Both of these goals can be advanced by adopting the sensible approach of wearing a mask, by the regular washing of hands, and by keeping a safe distance from others. These practices should now become second nature.

30. It is easy to criticise the regulations that have been implemented, but the vast majority of the ideas are being implemented for the general wellbeing of us all. We therefore urge you to take the rules seriously and to play by them. Your survival, or the survival of a family member or a friend might depend on it.

Warmest regards,

Miltons Matsemela Inc
28 May 2020

Archives: Legislation & Legal