KLS Attorneys Great Brak River

20/05/2026

Sardientjie Run:Bepaling van Mei 2026 wenner...vir wedloop na Main Sardyn finaal in November 2026...sien julle daar!

13/05/2026

New Valuation Roll for Greater Mossel Bay to be compiled.
Residents of Mossel Bay are advised that preparations are underway for the compilation of the Municipality’s next general valuation roll, in line with the requirements of the Municipal Property Rates Act.
The Act is national legislation that requires all municipalities in South Africa to value properties within their jurisdiction and levy property rates accordingly. It provides a uniform framework for the regulation, valuation, and rating of properties across the country.
In terms of the Act, municipalities must regularly update their valuation rolls to reflect current market conditions. For local municipalities such as Mossel Bay, a valuation roll remains valid for a maximum period of five years. This ensures that property values are reviewed on a consistent basis and remain aligned with changes in the property market.
Property rates form a key component of every municipality’s annual financial budget. These rates are calculated based on two main factors: the value of a property and the tariff applied. The tariff is determined in such a way that the municipality can balance its budget while continuing to deliver essential services.
The current general valuation roll for Mossel Bay Municipality came into effect on 1 July 2022 and will remain valid until 30 June 2027. A new valuation roll will therefore be implemented from 1 July 2027.

13/05/2026

Whether it is an unfair judgment or a decision that does not reflect the facts, you may have legal grounds to appeal. Our team takes the time to assess and guide the process. We challenge the outcomes when justice demands it. That is the power of having us in your corner.

Partner with Kotzé Low Swanepoel today. https://tinyurl.com/5apuht8f

10/05/2026

Baie gelukkige Moedersdag!

06/05/2026

Consistency is key for Homeowners Associations.

With communal living being the preference for many, issues arising from these regulated environments are to be expected. This demands that the regulatory bodies entrusted with running the communal living environments demonstrate consistency in the application of their rules and standards concerning their constituents. In this article, we look at the conduct of a Homeowners Association that failed to act consistently in the application of its rules.
When purchasing property in an estate one may be required to form part of the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) whose key obligation is to apply and enforce regulations and procedures agreed upon in the HOA's constitution (Memorandum of Incorporation). The HOA may implement a range of rules to manage and maintain the quality, safety, and appearance of the estate, as well as impose sanctions and penalties for non-adherence to these rules. These penalties and sanctions must in turn be imposed within the bounds of
fairness, reasonableness, and legality and apply equally to all homeowners within the estate.
In the matter of Reddy and Another v Cedar Lakes Homeowners Association (A018904/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 468 (17 May 2024) a Trust was the owner of immovable property within the Cedar Lakes Estate situated in Fourways, Johannesburg. As a homeowner, the Trust was obligated to comply with the HOA’s rules. In the HOA’s architectural rules, it states that timber must be used for all garage doors. In the event
that a homeowner wishes to utilise a different material or finish, approval must be sought from the Cedar Lakes HOA. In this case, a new garage door was installed with a mirror exterior finish, approval for which the Trust had applied, but which had been refused by the HOA. The HOA refused the mirror finish despite the fact that there had been several other properties with garage doors of a different material within the estate. The Community Schemes Ombud Service was approached, which made an adjudication that no evidence
had been presented to demonstrate that the HOA had unreasonably used their discretion and ordered the Trust to remove the garage door. The Trust however appealed the decision to the High Court in terms of section 57 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. In court it was argued that given the photographic evidence provided to the Adjudicator of other properties with garage doors of a different finish, the Adjudicator’s order was flawed as the Adjudicator had not exercised his discretion in a reasonable, proper, and fair manner. Section 50(c) of the Act was not carefully considered in the Adjudicator’s investigation as the Adjudicator should have reviewed the evidence of inconsistent approvals by the HOA when assessing the reasonableness of the HOA’s decision. If he had
done so, it would have led him to find that the HOA acted inconsistently and unreasonably in ordering the garage door's removal. The appeal was upheld by the High Court and the decision of the Adjudicator to remove the garage door was set aside. This case provides a clear warning to the managing authorities of communal schemes to not only ensure
they act in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, but also that they act with consistency and fairness. By adhering to standardised procedures and criteria, fairness, transparency, and predictability are ensured - essential factors for maintaining trust and order within the communal community.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm.
The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of
the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action
should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal
advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action
taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).
©

05/05/2026

Our own PROPERTY APP specially designed for our PROPERTY PRACTITIONERS. Download and register. Take a look at all the relevant and interesting posts, calculators and resources specifically focusing on our Property Practitioners https://klspropapp.co.za/

Attorneys, Notaries, Conveyancers, Estate Administrators (Transfers, Bond Registrations and Cancellations), Property Valuers & Mediators

05/05/2026

CSOS OF DIE HOF!
Die onlangse uitspraak in Parch Properties 72 (Edms) Bpk v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner’s Association and Others 2026 (1) SA 449 (SCA) (17 Oktober 2025) het welkome duidelikheid gebring oor die vraag of die Wet op die Voorsiening van 'n Ombudsdiens vir Gemeenskapskemas 9 van 2011 (CSOSwet) die jurisdiksie van die Hooggeregshof beperk.
Die Hoogste Hof van Appèl (HHA) het bevestig dat die CSOS-wet nie die Hooggeregshof se inherente jurisdiksie uitsluit nie. In plaas daarvan om as ’n eksklusiewe forum te funksioneer, dien CSOS as ’n alternatiewe, koste-effektiewe meganisme vir geskilbeslegting in gemeenskapskemas. Partye kan dus steeds kies om die howe direk te nader.
Agtergrond: Die jurisdiksiedebat
Vir jare het eienaars van deeltitel-eiendomme, ontwikkelaars en ander belanghebbendes geglo dat bestuurs- en administratiewe geskille rakende gemeenskapskemas na CSOS verwys moes word. Die HHA se beslissing in Parch Properties het nou hierdie onsekerheid opgelos.
Die geskil
Parch Properties het grond langs die Summervale Lifestyle Estate besit en wou sy ontwikkeling by die Summervale Huiseienaarsvereniging (HEV) inkorporeer. Dit het ’n wysiging van die HEV se grondwet vereis. Ná jare van onsuksesvolle pogings, grootliks weens teenkanting van sekere eienaars, het Parch Properties die Wes-Kaapse Afdeling van die Hooggeregshof genader vir ’n bevel om die inkorporering van sy ontwikkeling in die HEV te verklaar. Die respondente het die aansoek teengestaan en aangevoer dat die geskil binne die omvang van die CSOS-wet val en dus na CSOS verwys moes word. Hulle het verder geargumenteer dat die Hooggeregshof se rol beperk is tot appèlle en hersienings van CSOS-besluite.
Die HHA se beslissing
In die oorweging van die jurisdiksievraag het die HHA die doel van die CSOS-wet beklemtoon: om ’n vinnige, informele en bekostigbare meganisme vir die beslegting van gemeenskapskema-geskille te bied. Belangrik is dat die Hof beslis het dat:
Die Hooggeregshof sy inherente jurisdiksie behou, tensy dit uitdruklik of implisiet deur wetgewing uitgesluit word;
l
l Die CSOS-wet nie die Hooggeregshof se jurisdiksie uitsluit nie;
l Die CSOS-wet bedoel is om saam met, en nie in die plek van, die howe te funksioneer nie;
l Partye die vryheid behou om tussen CSOS en die Hooggeregshof te kies.
Betekenis van die uitspraak
Hierdie uitspraak bring sekerheid vir regspersone, huiseienaarsverenigings, eienaars en ontwikkelaars. Dit bevestig dat partye nie tot die CSOS-roete beperk is nie en die howe direk kan nader wanneer dit gepas is, veral in dringende of komplekse aangeleenthede wat onmiddellike geregtelike ingryping vereis. Die beslissing bevestig ’n belangrike beginsel: hoewel CSOS waardevolle toegang tot geregtigheid bied, verhoed dit nie individue om regshulp deur die Hooggeregshof te soek nie.
Vrywaring: Hierdie artikel verteenwoordig die persoonlike mening/siening van die outeur(s) en weerspieël
nie noodwendig die standpunte van die firma nie. Die inhoud word slegs vir inligtingsdoeleindes verskaf en
moet nie as ’n volledige of akkurate uiteensetting van die reg beskou word nie. Gevolglik moet geen
vertroue, om welke rede ook al, op die inhoud geplaas word nie, en geen stappe moet op grond daarvan
geneem word nie, tensy die toepassing en akkuraatheid daarvan deur ’n regsadviseur bevestig is nie. Die
firma en outeur(s) aanvaar geen aanspreeklikheid vir enige nadeel of skade wat voortspruit uit enige
optrede gebaseer op hierdie inhoud sonder verdere skriftelike bevestiging deur die outeur(s) nie.
© 2026,

30/04/2026

Nog 'n baie suksesvolle Sardientjie Run lewer skitterende gholf op! Vol veld in pragtige weer: Jan Van Wyk wen sy eerste Sardientjie Run finaal "cap" met skitterende telling van 43 IPS punte. Tweede was Peet Liebenberg met 42 IPS punte en derde Allie Kotze op 42 IPS punte op uittel. Hilton het weer heerlike ete voorgesit na afloop van die prysuitdeling! Lekker om in ons gemeenskap betrokke te kan wees! Sien fotos van pryswenners.

24/04/2026

23/04/2026

Our own PROPERTY APP specially designed for our PROPERTY PRACTITIONERS. Download and register. Take a look at all the relevant and interesting posts, calculators and resources specifically focusing on our Property Practitioners https://klspropapp.co.za/