Sectional Titles Amendment Bill: negotiating mandates

NCOP Land Reform, Environment, Mineral Resources and Energy

30 August 2022
Chairperson: Ms T Modise (ANC, North West)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Select Committee met on a virtual platform to discuss the provincial negotiating mandates on the Sectional Titles Amendment Bill [B31B-2020]. The provinces had to conduct public hearings because it was a section 76 Bill. There were proposed amendments from KZN, Gauteng, Limpopo and North West. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development (DALRRD) and the Parliamentary and State Law Advisors provided responses to these.

Most of the proposed amendments were new insertions or amendments which were not included in the Amendment Bill. The Department explained that any new proposals not catered for in the Amendment Bill as introduced would have to be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for consideration.

None of the proposed amendments from the provinces were accepted. This was mainly because four of the provinces did not have representatives present. The provinces that did not have representatives included the Free State, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, and KZN (departed early).

The Eastern Cape, Free State, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, and the Western Cape submitted their negotiating mandates in full support of the Amendment Bill with no proposed amendments.

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson welcomed the Department of Agriculture, Land, Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), State Attorney, parliamentary and State Legal Advisors, and various stakeholders in the meeting. The Committee had a long day of meetings, but needed to hear the provincial negotiating mandates on the Sectional Titles Amendment Bill and responses from DALRRD and the Legal Advisors on whether the mandates were in line with the legislation. She asked the Committee Secretary how many mandates the Committee had received.

The Committee Secretary replied they had received negotiating mandates from all the nine provinces.

The Chairperson said the Committee would start with the KZN negotiating mandate as Ms Bebee would depart the meeting early and needed to be part of the discussion of the negotiating mandate of her province.

KZN Negotiating Mandate
Ms L Bebee (ANC, KZN) requested the Committee Administrator read the KZN negotiating mandate.

Proposed Amendment 1
The first proposed amendment was on the participation quotas, and it requested that in line with other South African legislation, the wording of section 24(3) must be strengthened from “shall” to “must” because even though it had the same meaning, it clearly was not being read as such.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Antoinette Reynolds, Deputy Registrar of Deeds, DALRRD, said she had prepared a presentation that responded to all the negotiating mandates from the nine provinces and asked if she could just do the presentation instead of going through one province at a time.

The Chairperson said she had to respond to the negotiating mandates one province at a time to ensure that every response was recorded to avoid legal challenges.

Ms Reynolds said she understood. She said Clause 24(3) was not being amended in the Bill and any new proposals that were not catered for in the Bill as it is, would have to be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for consideration because it may also have been that the amendments may have to be catered for in the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) or in the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act. She said that the proposed amendment must be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for consideration.

Ms Sueanne Isaac, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, said changing the wording in the Bill would mean that the Act would lose the word “shall” and there would need to be a broader process for updating the Act, which was a 1986 Act as the wording might be outdated. She did not think that changing the wording would be the best approach.

Ms Suraya Williams, Principal State Law Advisor, said they adopted a simple legislative drafting process which made legislation much easier to understand by changing the word “shall” to “must”, but because this was an amendment to the principal Act, the wording was kept in line with the principal Act so there could be synergy between the Amendment Bill and the principal Act.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary to lead the voting on the first KZN proposed amendment.

The Committee Secretary said members could either vote “yes” indicating their support for the amendment, “no” indicating that they did not accept the amendment, or they could choose to abstain from the vote. He then allowed the members to vote according to their provinces.

Voting on KZN proposed amendment 1:
Eastern Cape – Supported
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Supported
KZN – Supported
Limpopo – No representative
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Did not support
Western Cape – Abstained

The first proposed amendment by KZN was not accepted.

Proposed Amendment 2
The second proposed amendment proposed that an alternative to strengthen compliance was to include a timeline for the task to be done by an owner of the unit, thus a proposal was to include the following words at the end of section 24(3) to read: “within six months, Body Corporate special resolution and prior to the building plans being approved by the local municipality”. Alternatively, provide a penalty for non-compliance to read: “within six months of the Body Corporates’ special resolution and prior to the building plans being approved by the local municipality or the approval lapses and the extension must be removed within two months of the approval lapsing”.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said the Department’s response was like the one on the first proposed amendment because this was a new insertion into the Act proposed by the province and it would have to be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for consideration.

Ms Williams said the matter fell within the purview of the Department because it also related to policy.

Ms Isaac said this was a new amendment to section 24(3) and agreed that the Department would best advise on the matter.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

Voting on proposed amendment 2 from KZN:
Eastern Cape – Supported
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Supported
KZN – Supported
Limpopo – No representative
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Did not support
Western Cape – Abstained

The second proposed amendment by KZN was not accepted.

Proposed Amendment 3
The third proposed amendment proposed that a comment made by another participant in a public hearing in the online comments read as such: “My recommendation is that the Bill should provide that prior to a transfer of a section, a Land Surveyor and/or and Architect must issue a certificate to the effect that the section is fully compliant with the sectional plan as registered in the Deeds Office”.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said this was also a new addition to the Bill and could not be supported as it needed to be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for further consideration and discussion.

Ms Williams said the matter fell within the purview of the Department because it also related to policy.

Ms Isaac agreed that the Department would best advise on the matter because it was a policy issue.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

The Committee Secretary called for the Eastern Cape to vote.

Mr Z Mkiva (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked the Committee Administrator to repeat the proposed amendment as he could not hear because of network connection issues.

The Committee Administrator read the proposed amendment.

Mr M Nhanha (DA, Eastern Cape) was concerned because the Department and State Law Advisors seemed to be synchronised in their responses and the Committee was likely to go against their expert advice. He proposed the Committee Administrator summarise the inputs from the State Law Advisors, Parliament Legal Department and the Department before the voting so that whatever the provinces decided would be done with the full understanding of the inputs from the legal experts.

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee Administrator must summarise the responses from the Department, parliamentary Legal Advisor and State Law Advisors before the voting.

The Committee Administrator said his interpretation of what Mr Nhanha said was that the responses from the Department, State Law Advisors, and Parliamentary Legal Advisors must also be captured when the Minutes about the proceedings of the meeting was done. He said he would not be able to capture their responses during the meeting before the voting as he was not in the position to correctly do so, but he could correctly provide detailed minutes of what exactly they said.

The Committee Secretary suggested that the Legal Advisors could advise on whether an amendment would be good or not if supported by the provinces.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) said the Committee would need to sit down and discuss the procedure after dealing with this Amendment Bill because they spent a lot of time discussing the same issues and were never on the same page. She had a problem with the way the Committee handled things and said they could never amend any Bill in the way they handle negotiating mandates because each province just gave input on the specific clauses that they thought needed changing and were silent on other provinces’ mandates. This procedure needed to be addressed because the way it was done was a waste of time.

The Chairperson noted Ms Labuschagne’s concerns and asked the Committee to continue with the voting.

Voting on proposed amendment 3 from KZN
Eastern Cape – Supported

Ms Reynolds said Members should look at the wording and the effect such an amendment would have. She said the assertion that “…prior to a transfer of a section, a Land Surveyor and/or and Architect must issue a certificate to the effect that the section is fully compliant with the sectional plan…” meant that every time a person that is an owner of a Sectional Title wanted to sell their property, they would need a Land Surveyor or an Architect to see if the property still reflected as the initial registered plan. This would have financial implications and cause delays in registrations, which would also impact Land Surveyors and Architects.

Land Surveyors and Architects were also represented in the Sectional Titles Resolution Boards and would look at such a proposed amendment and give an opinion on whether it would be necessary to amend the Sectional Titles Amendment Act or the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act because an owner would need to have permission from the body corporate prior to renovating his/her property.

Free State – No representative

Gauteng – Supported

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC, Gauteng) said when the Members are voting, that should be the only focus and explanations must happen during the deliberations.

KZN – Supported
Limpopo – Supported
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Did not support
Western Cape – Did not support

The third proposed amendment by KZN was not accepted.

Proposed Amendment 4
The fourth proposed amendment proposed the amendment inserted the following:
section 24(3A): if a unit fails to register the relevant plan of extension within 90 days of completion for occupation of the extension of the unit, the owner or his or her successor in Title shall be liable to the body corporate for amounts payable to the body corporate in terms of section 3 of the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act as if the extension had been included in the relevant Sectional Title Register on the date of completion.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said the proposed amendments were not part of the Bill and spoke to amendments of the principal Act so any new proposals would have to be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for discussion, consideration, and possible amendment.

Ms Williams said some of the proposals extended the scope of the Bill. The Bill amended what was provided in the Act and when an Amendment Bill is created, the Department would make the proposed amendments, having considered the policy of the Executive. There was a different procedure to be followed when proposing new amendments contained in the Act but not in the Bill as introduced.

Ms Isaac said many of the proposed amendments were policy issues that the Department would be best to advise on.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

Voting on proposed amendment 4 from KZN
Eastern Cape – Abstained
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Abstained
KZN – Supported
Limpopo – Supported
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Abstained
Western Cape – Abstained

The fourth proposed amendment by KZN was not accepted.

Proposed amendment 5
The fifth proposed amendment proposed the amendment of clause 8 by inserting the following:

Section 24(3)b: When a unit registers an extensional inspection, a copy of both the Municipal Plan and Occupational Certificates from the municipality and an Engineer certificate confirming that the structure is sound must be supplied to the body corporate. Failure to supply any of these documents will result in the unit being responsible for any future structural repairs.


Section 25(5)a(b) allows for the body corporate to charge for levies on units built by developers that are not registered. This would bring section 24 in line with section 25.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said this was also a new insertion and must be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for consideration.

Ms Williams agreed with Ms Reynolds.

Ms Isaac also agreed.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

Voting on proposed amendment 5 from KZN
Eastern Cape – Supported
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Supported
KZN – Supported
Limpopo – Supported
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Abstained
Western Cape – Abstained

The proposed amendment by KZN was not accepted.

Proposed amendment on section D1-9
The Committee Administrator said there were no proposals but only comments in the proposed amendments and was unsure of how to continue as there might not have been anything for the Committee to vote on.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said there were no proposals so there was no need for voting and suggested that the Committee Administrator continues to the sections where there were proposed amendments to certain clauses in the Amendment Bill. She also noted that most of the following proposed amendments were new insertions to the Bill and would have the same answer that they must be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for consideration and some of them were just comments and had already been added to the Bill.

Ms Williams agreed with Ms Reynolds and had nothing to add as the proposals were related to policy.

Ms Isaac also had nothing to add.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

The Committee Administrator said it would be difficult to lead a vote because the comments ran through several proposed amendments and suggested that the Committee go back and vote on each of the proposals they skipped through.

The Committee Secretary said the Department must look at the numbering and tell the Committee which clauses needed voting.

Ms Reynolds mentioned all the sections that were already included in the Bill.

The Committee Secretary said the proposals from section D1-9 were already in the Bill and did not need to be voted on and asked the Department, State Law Advisor, and Parliamentary Legal Advisor to agree on that so the Committee could bypass voting on the proposals.

Ms Reynolds, Ms Williams, and Ms Isaac all agreed.

The Committee Secretary called for a proposer and a seconder to bypass the voting on the proposals.

Ms Ngwenya proposed the bypass and was supported by Ms T Mamorobela (ANC, Limpopo).

Proposed Amendment on Section D-10
The amendment proposed the amendment of section 22 on the Registration of Sub-division of Property to reflect the following: “Any application on sub-section 1 shall be accompanied by (C)a any Lease or other Deeds embodying any other Real Rights registered against the section at the time of sub-division if available. Provided that where the Lease or other Deed embodying the new right is not available, an Affidavit may be submitted by the owner or developer. As the case may be to the effect that the Lease or the other Deed is not available where upon the Registrar must endorse a Deeds Registry duplicate thereof, and if the original Lease or other Deed is at any time lodged with the Registrar, he or she must make a similar endorsement thereon”. The comment on this was “should this not also include a provision around lodging the Mortgage over a Lease between (Real Right in property) for cancelation-release and substitution of new security (similar to the provision in C)?”.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said the insertion related to when an owner of a Townhouse wants to subdivide it into two smaller Townhouses and the procedures that must be followed. The specific section provided for certain Deeds and documents to be lodged with the Registrar of the Deeds. The Registrar would then endorse the Deeds to indicate that the Townhouse has been divided into two smaller townhouses.

She said the Act did not provide for the lodgement of Lease agreements and other Real Rights registered over a Townhouse, which is why the clause was inserted to provide for the Lease agreements and for the Real Rights to be lodged and provided for an Affidavit and the Registrar of Deeds to provide an office copy of the Lease if the documents were not available.

She said this was not a proposed amendment but rather a question and this would also need to be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for further discussion and consideration as it was leaning towards policy.

Ms Williams agreed that the insertion was posing a question and it was unclear whether they wanted to bring something to the attention of the Committee. In the absence of a proposal, she was unsure how the insertion could be considered as a proposed amendment and if there were a drafting proposal, it would be a new amendment which was not included in the Bill and would extend the scope of the Bill because it required policy consideration which would be at the purview of the Department.

Ms Isaac agreed that it was a policy matter and it would be at the purview of the Department.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

Dr F Bhese (ANC, Eastern Cape legislature) was unsure whether the Members should vote on the matter because it was like the matters that were bypassed.

The Committee Secretary asked if the Department, State Law Advisor, and Parliamentary Legal Advisor would suggest the bypassing of proposed amendment D-10.

The Department, State Law Advisor, and Parliamentary Legal Advisor agreed and said it was the same.

The proposed amendment was bypassed.

Proposed Amendment D-11
DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said the proposed amendment was the same as D-10 as no proposal was made, and there was a question posed, which meant the response would be the same. The issue would also need to be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for further discussion and consideration as it leaned towards policy.

The Committee Secretary asked if the Members should vote on the matter or include it in other matters that were bypassed for not having substantive proposed amendments.

The Chairperson said they should not vote and move on to the next proposed amendment.

Proposed Amendment D-12
[Meeting audio link disconnected between 1:28:00 and 1:30:00]

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said there was also nothing proposed in the amendment as it just referred to the amendment of section 25.

Ms Williams said it seemed the proposed amendment was to substitute sub-section 10 paragraph C, but there was no proposed amendment to paragraph A in the Bill. It seemed they may have been proposing substituting one copy to two copies of the Sectional Plan of Extensions, but the provision was not in the Bill.

Ms Reynolds said it seemed like a new proposal and did not understand why they proposed two copies instead of one copy and the Bill did not deal with the amendment of section 25. This new proposal needed to be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for further discussion and consideration.

The Committee Secretary asked if the Members could vote on the matter.

Ms Reynolds said the Committee could vote because the proposed amendment required two copies to be requested instead of one copy.

Voting on proposed amendment D-12 from KZN
Eastern Cape – Supported
Free State – No representative
Gauteng –No representative
KZN – No representative
Limpopo – Supported
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Did not support
Western Cape – Abstained

The proposed amendment by KZN was not accepted.

Proposed Amendment D-14
The insertion stated that the provisions of (sub-section 1 and sub-sections 4-7) apply with the necessary changes to instances where land to extend a common property is purchased or acquired by the developer. The comment read as follows: “Should this not also reference prior to the establishment of a Body Corporate to align with amendments above?...The proposed amendment is included but the question has not been addressed in the Bill”.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said the proposal was to align the amendment with sections 22, 23, and 24 to provide for the Body Corporate prior to its establishment to purchase land. The question could also be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for further discussion and consideration, but the Department would not object if the amendment were considered.

Ms Williams said their proposed sub-section 8 was an addition to section 26 of the principal Act as it was not included but did not understand the reference to sub-section 1 because, in the principal Act, section 26(1) was repealed and no longer existed. Because this was an addition, there would be no deletions from the provisions from sub-sections 8 and 9 because they would both be additions to section 26 of the principal Act.

Ms Isaac said she noticed the same issue as Ms Williams and regarding the addition of “prior to the establishment of the Body Corporate”, she felt that the use of the word “developer” implied that it is prior to the establishment of the Body Corporate and if the Department felt there would be no policy constraints in the addition, then it would be an acceptable amendment.

The Chairperson asked if the Members wanted to vote on the proposed amendment and the Members chose to bypass the proposed amendment.

The Committee Administrator asked if the Department noted any further proposed amendments as he did not see them.

Ms Reynolds said no proposals were left from KZN and the Committee could bypass the comments made from D-15 onwards.

Dr Bhese proposed the bypassing of comments from D-15. The Chairperson seconded.

The Committee Administrator read the conclusion of the KZN negotiating mandate.

Eastern Cape Negotiating Mandate
The Committee Secretary read the Eastern Cape mandate supporting the Amendment Bill. There were no proposed Amendments.

Free State Negotiating Mandate
The Committee Secretary read the Free State mandate supporting the Amendment Bill. There were no proposed Amendments.

Mpumalanga Negotiating Mandate
The Committee Secretary read the mandate from Mpumalanga that supported the Amendment Bill. There were no proposed Amendments.

Northern Cape Negotiating Mandate
The Committee Secretary read the Northern Cape mandate supporting the Amendment Bill. There were no proposed Amendments.

Western Cape Negotiating Mandate
The Committee Secretary read the Western Cape mandate supporting the Amendment Bill. There were no proposed Amendments.

The Chairperson asked for a proposer and a seconder for the provinces that did not have amendments.

Ms Labuschagne proposed and was seconded by Ms Ngwenya.

Gauteng Negotiating Mandate
As requested by Ms Ngwenya, the Committee Administrator read the Gauteng negotiating mandate and proposed amendments.

Proposed Amendment
The mandate proposed the deletion of the words (or by the occupants or the occupants thereof recognised by law as contemplated in this act) in line 13-15 and substitute with the following words: “or by any person – est persons designated by the owner”. Exclusive use area means a part or parts of the common property for the exclusive use by the owner or owners of one or more sections (or by an occupant or occupants thereof recognised by law as contemplated in this Act) or by any person or persons designated by the owner. Alternatively, the current wording of the definition in the principal Act should remain as is.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said the Department did not have a problem with replacing the wording “by an occupant or occupants” with “by any person or persons”, but they would like the words “as recognised by law” to remain because it may be that a person is deceased and the property rests in the Executor of the estate.

Ms Williams agreed and said she had nothing else to add.

Ms Isaac said Limpopo also made a proposal on the clause and their wording was a bit broader and referred to “the persons lawfully occupying the relevant sections” and felt that this wording would be more suitable because it contained the lawful part compared to the Gauteng suggestion.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

Voting on the proposed amendment from Gauteng
Eastern Cape – Supported
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Supported
KZN – No representative
Limpopo – Supported
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Supported
Western Cape – Abstained

The amendment was not accepted.

Limpopo Negotiating Mandate
Ms Mamorobela asked the Committee Administrator to read the Limpopo negotiating mandate and proposed amendments.

Proposed Amendment 1
Clause 1 seeks to amend section 1 of the Act: the current wording of the definition of Exclusive Use Area refers to the exclusive use by only the owner or owners of one or more sections. The definition can also be interpreted to exclude any person other than the owner from using the Exclusive Use Areas such as a Lessee or even the owner’s spouse or other Members of the owner’s household. The proposed amendment in Clause 1(a) of the Bill aims to clarify the position. The phrase “or by the occupant or occupants thereof recognised by law as contemplated in this act” seems confusing. We suggest the wording be changed to read “the person or persons lawfully occupying the relevant section in the scheme”.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said the Department did not have an objection to the proposed amendment.

The Chairperson agreed and noted that the State Law and Parliamentary Legal Advisors had already spoken to the matter. She then called for a vote.

Voting on proposed amendment 1 from Limpopo
Eastern Cape – Supported
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Abstained
KZN – No representative
Limpopo – Supported
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Supported
Western Cape – Abstained

The amendment was not accepted.

Proposed amendment 2
Clause 6 seeks to amend section 17 of the Act, which deals with the alienation and letting of the common property. In terms of section 17 (4)b, the Registrar shall not register a Lease where the land forms part of the common property unless such lease is made subject to all the rights of the owner of the section. Section 17 does not provide for the Lease to be subjected to the rights of holders of Real Rights in terms of sections 25 and 27. The suggested amendment of Clause 6(a) is that the section should read “where pursuant to sub-section 1, it is sought to register a Lease of land which forms part of the common property”. We do not agree with the inclusion of the word ‘let’, which could be an oral lease or an underhand lease. This would require an additional amendment to the Bill.

The suggested amendment of section 5(c): The last part of this sub-section requires written consent of the holder thereof to the cancellation of the Real Right or a part thereof. Such a cancellation has to be done by a Bilateral Material Deed. It is not clear why the written consent of the holder is required. The subsection should simply require by Bilateral Material Deed (we note that the same wording appears under section 17(4)b (a), which likewise, does not appear to make sense).

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said the request to remove the word ‘let’ in clause 6 and use the phrase ‘register a lease’ was a new proposal because the Department was not amending the word ‘let’, but were adding on the section to provide for the rights of holders of Real Rights to be lodged when the body corporate wants to register a Lease over a portion of common property. She said the proposed amendment was a new proposal and should rather be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for further discussion and consideration.

On the suggested amendment of section 5(c), she said the suggestion that the subsection should only require Bilateral Material Deed was a new proposal that should also be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for further discussion and consideration.

Ms Williams said she had nothing to add.

Ms Isaac agreed with the advice provided by Ms Reynolds and had nothing to add.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

Voting on proposed amendment 2 from Limpopo
Eastern Cape – Supported
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Supported
KZN – No representative
Limpopo – Supported
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Abstained
Western Cape – Abstained

The amendment was not accepted.

North West Negotiating Mandate
The Chairperson asked the Committee Administrator to read the North West negotiating mandate and proposed amendments.

Proposed Amendment 1
The Bill is silent concerning residential units that are regulated by municipalities. It is therefore proposed that a clause be accommodated for residential units/properties belonging to local government municipalities, especially when it comes to the maintenance of those properties. This is advised because there is no proper management of those properties and tenants are prejudiced mainly because lack of knowledge of their individual rights compared to registered real rights holders.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said the Sectional Titles Act dealt with registration matters by the Registrar of Deeds and Surveying matters, as well as the approval of Sectional Plans by the Office of the Surveyor General. The suggested amendments related to maintenance issues and the maintenance of Sectional Title Schemes that belonged to municipalities.

She said the matters were dealt with in the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act (No 8 of 2011) which was administered by the Department of Human Settlements and there was a section in the Act that provided for the establishment of a Council that makes regulations and recommendations to the Minister of Human Settlements. She proposed that the proposed amendment should be referred to that specific Council.

Ms Williams said there was an Electronic Deeds Registration Systems Act which provided for electronic deeds registration and said the province may want to consider the Act.

Ms Reynolds agreed and said section 2 of the Electronic Deeds Registration Systems Act came into operation and provided for the Chief Registrar of Deeds to effect the development, maintenance and establishment of the system which would provide for conveyancers to lodge from anywhere in the country. The proposal to increase Deeds Offices was dealt with in section 1 of the Deeds Registry’s Act, which empowered the Minister to establish new Deeds Registries.

Ms Isaac agreed with Ms Reynolds.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

Voting on proposed amendment 1 from the North West
Eastern Cape – Did not support
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Abstained
KZN – No representative
Limpopo – Abstained
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Supported
Western Cape – Abstained

The amendment was not accepted.

Proposed Amendment 2
Amendment of section 21 of Act 95 of 1986: despite the insertion of subsection 1(a) into the Bill, it is further proposed that the Bill should provide for the protection of individual rights as far as joint ownership in common property is concerned where Sectional Title Deeds exist.

DALRRD and Legal Advisors response
Ms Reynolds said this was a new proposal that may need to be referred to the Sectional Titles Regulation Board for further discussion and consideration.

Ms Williams had nothing to add.

Ms Isaac also had nothing to add.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

Voting on proposed amendment 2 from the North West
Eastern Cape – Supported
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Abstained
KZN – No representative
Limpopo – Abstained
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Supported
Western Cape – Abstained

The amendment was not accepted.

Proposed Amendment 3
This was a proposal that Clause 15 must also include increasing Deeds Registry Offices in provinces. Currently, there is only one Deeds Registry Office in the North West and that creates a backlog as far as the issuing of Title Deeds is concerned.

Ms Reynolds said the matter needed to be referred to the Electronic Deeds Registration Systems Act and that the proposal to increase Deeds Offices was dealt with in section 1 of the Deeds Registry’s Act, which empowered the Minister to establish new Deeds Registries.

Ms Williams had nothing further to add as the matter was dealt with.

Ms Isaac also had nothing to add.

The Chairperson called for a vote.

Voting on proposed amendment 3 from the North West
Eastern Cape – Abstained
Free State – No representative
Gauteng – Abstained
KZN – No representative
Limpopo – Abstained
Mpumalanga- No representative
Northern Cape – No representative
North West – Supported
Western Cape – Abstained

The amendment was not accepted.

The Chairperson deferred the adoption of the minutes to the next Committee meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: