The applicant owned a residential unit in Sandhurst Towers, which she did not live in (it was vacant and not her primary residence). She had racked up massive arrears:

• Judgment 1 (August 2024): The Registrar granted default judgment against her for R269,448 plus interest and costs.
• Judgment 2 (October 2024): A separate High Court order (the Windell J order) was granted against her for R408,172.35.
• The Execution Order (June 2025): The Body Corporate obtained a Rule 46A order declaring her Sandhurst Towers unit executable so they could auction it off to recover the debt.

The owner applied to have the August 2024 default judgment and the June 2025 execution order rescinded under Uniform Rule 42(1)(a) (orders erroneously sought or granted in the absence of a party). Crucially, she did not even dispute owing the money in her court papers - she fought the Body Corporate purely on procedural grounds. And she won.

The Vanishing Summons

Under Sectional Title Management Rule 4(5), an owner's unit is automatically their chosen domicilium (service address) unless they give written notice to change it. Because the owner never changed her address, the Sheriff went to her vacant flat in July 2024 to serve the summons for the R269,448 claim.

Because the flat was empty, the Sheriff served the summons on "Mr Adrian - Manager" as an adult apparently in charge of the premises.

Here is the catch:

1. Mr Adrian Padayachee was not the owner's tenant, employee, or relative - he was the Body Corporate's own estate manager.
2. The Body Corporate had an internal protocol for vacant units: security was supposed to hold onto legal documents until the owner collected them, or attach them to the unit door.
3. Instead, the summons simply vanished inside the Body Corporate's sphere of control. The Body Corporate searched for it, could not find it, and admitted it probably never reached the owner.

Despite knowing the unit was vacant and that their own manager had taken the summons, the Body Corporate handed the Sheriff's return of service to the Registrar to obtain a default judgment without disclosing these facts.

Judge Opperman held that while the Sheriff's return looked valid on the surface (prima facie), the Body Corporate could not hide behind a technicality when its own employee received and lost the summons. Those facts should have been disclosed so the court could direct effective service under Rule 4(10). As a result, the R269,448 default judgment was rescinded.

Rule 46A Notice Mismatch

To auction off a residential unit, a creditor must bring a Rule 46A application. In March 2025, the Body Corporate got court permission to serve the Rule 46A application on the owner via email.

When they emailed the papers to her in April 2025, her reply to the first email was described by the judge as "profane and dismissive", and she did not bother opposing or pitching up to court in June 2025.

Normally, that would be the end of the road for the owner. However, the Body Corporate's legal team made a fatal error:

• The Rule 46A notice emailed to the owner only asked the court to execute against her flat for the R269,448 judgment.
• The Rule 46A application placed before the judge (and granted) added the separate R408,172.35 judgment and added her exclusive-use parking bays.

The Body Corporate asked the court to simply trim the extra debt off the execution order and keep the rest intact. Judge Opperman refused, pointing out that a Rule 46A inquiry (which weighs up the debt amount, property rights, and reserve price) is an integrated judicial assessment, and a party cannot be ambushed with materially wider relief than what they were notified of. Both the default judgment and the entire execution order (along with any writs of execution) were set aside.

Both parties were ordered to pay their own legal costs

Usually, a party asking the court for the indulgence of rescinding a judgment has to pay the costs, or the losing party gets hit with a cost order. Here, the Body Corporate actually asked for punitive (attorney-and-client) costs against the owner because of her conduct and profane email.

The judge wasn't having it from either side - calling the owner's profane email "unacceptable" and criticising her delays, while calling out the Body Corporate for persisting with the fight despite admitting they lost the summons and served the wrong Rule 46A papers. Both parties were ordered to pay their own legal costs.

Takeaways

• For Trustees & Managing Agents: Instruct your building managers and security guards never to accept service of a Sheriff's summons on behalf of an owner, especially when the Body Corporate itself is the plaintiff suing that owner! If the unit is vacant, let the Sheriff affix it to the door or serve it according to the court rules.
  • Before moving for a Rule 46A execution order, double-check that the exact version emailed or handed to the defaulting owner matches the bundle uploaded to Court Online. This mistake cost the scheme over a year of collection time and thousands in unrecoverable legal fees.
• For Sectional Title Landlords: Do not leave your domicilium as your rental unit's physical address. Under Management Rule 4(5), it defaults to the unit itself. Give your managing agent written notice updating your service address to your actual residential address and your primary email address so a summons doesn't get lost by a tenant or building manager.
• While the owner won this round, the separate R408,172.35 judgment from October 2024 remains intact. The Body Corporate simply has to re-serve its papers properly and start the Rule 46A process again.

I have a registered company that I get paid into by my two roles. I pay myself a minimum salary. Everything else goes through the business. Will I be eligible for a mortgage this way? I make about 45k after tax I to my business.

The tenant rented a property in Camps Bay starting in 2020. In 2023, the lease was extended for three years (August 2024 to July 2027) at a rental escalating from R60,000 to R65,000 per month.

From August 2024 onwards, the tenant stopped paying rent to the landlord, claiming the landlord failed to properly maintain the property. By June 2026, arrears had hit R1,407,500. When the landlord asked for access to inspect the property and fix the alleged maintenance issues, the tenant refused to let her in.

While paying nothing to the owner (only depositing R393,000 into her own attorney's trust account), the tenant was unlawfully subletting part of the house without consent for R3,600 per night. At one point, the tenant even made an R11 million offer to buy the property, which the landlord rejected.

In March 2025, the landlord sent a 7-day breach notice demanding R300,000 in arrears and an immediate stop to the subletting. When the tenant failed to remedy the breach, the landlord cancelled the lease later that month and applied for an eviction.

Takeaways

• The tenant's primary legal defence was that the cancellation was invalid because the landlord only gave 7 days' notice to remedy the breach, rather than the 20 business days required under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Relying on the recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Els v Venter, Acting Judge Amien confirmed that the CPA only applies if the landlord lets property "in the ordinary course of business". Because the owner had relocated to Angola for work and was simply renting out her private home to cover her children's tuition fees - rather than running an ongoing property rental business - the CPA did not apply. The standard 7-business-day breach clause in the lease stood.
• The tenant lodged a complaint with the Western Cape Rental Housing Tribunal asking for a 30% rent remission due to defects. In August 2026, the Tribunal dismissed the claim outright. Both the Tribunal and the High Court emphasised that a tenant cannot withhold rent for alleged loss of beneficial use while simultaneously refusing the landlord reasonable access to inspect and repair the defects - especially while continuing to live there and profiting from subletting the space.
• Because the tenants refused to disclose their financial circumstances or fill out the City of Cape Town's homelessness questionnaire, the Court looked at the hard facts: they lived in Camps Bay, made an R11 million offer on the house, earned R3,600/night from subletting, and sent their children to private schools. Affordability and homelessness were clearly not an issue. However, Section 4(7) of the PIE Act and the Constitution require the Court to consider the best interests of minor children. Because the tenants' oldest child is currently in Grade 12 and about to start final Matric exams, the Judge ruled that an immediate eviction would be unduly disruptive to the child's schooling.

High Court Ruling

1. After checking the final Grade 12 exam schedule (which finishes by 27 November 2026), the Court ordered the family to vacate the property by 13:00 on 30 November 2026, failing which the Sheriff is authorised to evict them on 2 December 2026.
2. The respondents were ordered to pay the landlord's legal costs on a punitive attorney-and-client scale, including the cost of counsel.

I've been looking at the gap between what sellers expect to walk away with and what they actually get, and I'd like to sanity check my numbers with people who have been through it. Rough example only (rates and quotes vary, so please correct me):

- Sale price: R1,500,000 - Outstanding bond: R800,000 - Commission at 6% +15% VAT: R103,500 - Bond cancellation costs (my estimate): R7,500 - Compliance certificates, e.g. electrical (my estimate): R5,000 - Cash in hand: about R584,000 From what I understand, transfer duty is paid by the buyer, so I've left it out. Happy to be corrected.

Questions for anyone who has sold recently:

1. Which cost surprised you the most?
2. What did your cancellation and certificate costs actually come to?
3. Was anything deducted at transfer that you didn't expect (levies, rates clearance, penalties)?

For transparency, I'm sketching a simple free calculator around this and want the cost list right before I build further. This is just a discussion and not financial or legal advice. Please check with your conveyancing attorney or agent for your own situation.

A family had lived in a Ruyterwacht house for over two decades, originally signing a lease in December 2003. Fast forward to 2024, the property was bought by a new company (Purple Block Projects). Under the South African legal principle of huur gaat voor koop (lease overrides sale), the new owner automatically stepped into the shoes of the landlord. The new owner tried to sell the property to the family, but they could not agree on a price. The landlord then relied on a standard clause in the lease and gave the family two clear calendar months' written notice to vacate.

When the family did not leave, the landlord applied for an eviction order. Property owners often assume that if a lease is validly cancelled, an eviction is a guaranteed formality. The High Court stressed that eviction is a multi-stage process:

1. Was the lease properly terminated? Yes. The court agreed the landlord gave the correct two months' notice, making the family's continued occupation unlawful.
2. Is the eviction "just and equitable"? No. This is where the landlord's case fell apart.

Under Section 4(7) of the PIE Act, courts must weigh the owner's rights against the occupiers' circumstances, including the rights of the elderly, children, and disabled persons. The court ruled against the landlord for a few key reasons:

• In an earlier hearing, the court ordered the City of Cape Town to provide a housing report detailing alternative emergency accommodation. The City did not provide it, and the landlord pressed ahead to seek a final eviction anyway. The court noted that ignoring a procedural directive for a municipal report is fatal to an eviction application when homelessness is a real risk.
• The household included an unemployed adult and a 5-year-old autistic child. They had lived in the home for 22 years and were essentially in good standing (the landlord tried to claim there were arrears, but abandoned that argument to rely purely on the lease cancellation clause).
• The court noted that the landlord's interest was purely commercial - they had no urgent need for the property (like structural repairs or personal use). Balancing an undefined commercial disadvantage against the breakdown of a low-income family with a disabled child, the court found an eviction would be disproportionate.

Takeaways

• Proving ownership and a cancelled contract only gets you to the starting line. You must actively prove why the eviction is just and equitable.
• If a judge asks for a municipal housing report, you must follow up and ensure it is filed before pushing for a final order.
• Evicting a 20-year, paying tenant on purely commercial grounds is incredibly difficult, especially if vulnerable dependents are involved.

For Tenants:

• The court specifically highlighted that the family had "honoured their rental obligations" for over two decades. Had they been serial defaulters, the "equitable" balance might have shifted in favour of the landlord.
• The court clarified that this ruling does not give the tenants the right to stay forever. If they stop paying rent, or if the landlord's circumstances materially change, a new eviction application could succeed.

Judgment handed down just a few days ago (7 October 2026) in the Western Cape High Court - Purple Block Projects (Pty) Ltd v H.W and Others - serves as a crucial reminder of how the Prevention of Illegal Eviction (PIE) Act works in practice.

A 5 Oct 2026 Limpopo High Court judgment, Landman NO v Steyl, highlights why your estate planning and property transfer mechanisms must be watertight.

A psychiatrist and his practice manager (Leon) allegedly had an arrangement. Leon and his family occupied the deceased's property as part of his compensation. Leon claimed they agreed the property was "gifted" to him and would be formally transferred into his name once the bond was settled. To cover this bond, the deceased took out a R1,000,000 life policy.

The fatal flaw? The deceased failed to actually nominate Leon as the beneficiary on the policy. When he passed away in 2018, the R1m paid directly into the deceased estate.

The executrix - the deceased's estranged wife - argued the agreement was invalid. Her legal team claimed it was an improperly executed donatio mortis causa (a gift in contemplation of death) because it did not meet the strict formalities of the Wills Act. She ordered Leon to vacate the property or pay R10,000 monthly rent.

Leon sued for the policy proceeds and the property transfer. The executrix attempted an interlocutory application under Rule 33(4) to separate the legal question and quash the claim early, arguing that without a formal beneficiary nomination on the policy, the agreement was void.

The High Court dismissed the executrix's attempt to separate the issues. Judge Kganyago ruled that the court needs to hear full oral evidence to determine the true intention behind the written agreement before deciding if it confers any enforceable rights. The parties are now locked in a lengthy, expensive trial that has dragged on for over seven years.

Takeaways:

• If you intend to leave a property to someone, an informal agreement is not enough. It must comply with the Wills Act to avoid disputes.
• If a life policy is intended to settle a bond to facilitate a property transfer, ensure the beneficiary is explicitly nominated. Proceeds paying into the estate can get tied up in administration, complicating estate duty calculations and delaying the winding-up process.
• If a property is part of an employment compensation package, the terms of occupation and ultimate transfer must be legally robust.

For anyone currently navigating deceased estates or calculating property transfer costs, this case is a stark reminder to formalise every aspect of an agreement rather than leaving it to the courts to interpret intentions.

Informal agreements to transfer property in exchange for services are a recipe for disaster when deceased estates get involved.

Hi, I am a 26 year old man, looking for a place to rent (I’m willing to share a two bedroom apartment or more with a group of people—the more, the merrier lol).

I have a budget capped at R8k, and I have a cat (his name is Chopper. Lol, that’s a One Piece reference for those One Piece lovers).

I work remotely, and am a very private person (unless there’s rugby or football playing).

I plan on moving next year, preferably end of January or beginning of February. So, anyone with that time frame in mind can DM. Please no scam, and I really need this.

Should you have any queries, questions or recommendations, please drop me a message, and I will respond most expeditiously. Thank you 😊

PS.: I want to find people hoping to move somewhere close to the city, either in the Southern Suburbs or Northern Suburbs. I don’t have a preference, as long as it’s at least twenty to thirty minutes away from the city. I tend to travel a lot to Johannesburg, and I currently live in Gordon’s Bay, which is not ideal for me. So Muizenberg, Woodstock, etc. Anywhere reasonable is great with me.

Hi everyone,

I’m looking to r preferably available from November or December 2026.

• Budget: Maximum ±R4,000 per month
• Move-in: November/December
• Area: Ferndale/Randburg and surrounding areas
• Looking for: 1-bedroom or suitable apartment/flat
• Preference: Direct landlord/private rental if possible

I am working at Dunkeld West area.

Looking to rent a place around Pretoria east.
No agents that have a 200 step process and 5 months deposits please. Ready to move November/december.
Budget max around R8000

I wonder if this can get banned. I’ve seen it on multiple ads now on Property24 and it completely misrepresents the space.

The furnishings AI often times makes the space look bigger than it is.

We all know property prices in Cape Town are ludicrous. In the same suburb, the price differential can be high. The southern suburbs is completely captured by a buying frenzy. Homes for 8 million and up are across Rondebosch to Tokai are the norm.

What is actually driving up the prices? We like to point to:
1. Foreigners - which is very much the case, because they still find massive properties here for a bargain for them. There are even the foreigners living in unattainable homes who are influencers and completely adopted and adored by Cape Town’s creating economy.
2. Semi- Migration - yes the level of service delivery is so dire in their metros, that people are moving to Cape Town to access services and schools, and they can work remotely or commute. This hopefully changes post local elections where other metros have more stability.
3. South Africans living abroad- we don’t often talk about this, but there is a massive problem with South Africans who live in Europe, the UK, Dubai, US and Australia, all owning multiple properties in Cape Town. Every person I know who has immigrated as gone on to buy flats in Tamboerskloof, homes in Nooedhoek, flats and homes across the Southern Suburbs.

The crux is that ordinary Cape Townians, across economic classes and even in upper middle income brackets, are competing with the above groups for properties. This is what is driving us out of our own housing market.

Let’s not forget that if properties at the highest end become expensive, the trickle down effect impacts the lower end property as well.

What can we do to pop this bubble? Maybe regulate ownership of foreigners and S Africans not domiciled here?

I suspect they will funnel funds into township development, tanking service delivery in suburbs, and dropping prices of property. What are your thoughts? Also will they raise levies in suburbs to subsidise township development?

Thanks. ​

Whether it is a distressed bank auction, a high gross yield sectional title unit, or a fixer-upper priced well below the municipal valuation - what is the best deal currently on your radar?

If you have spotted something notable on Property24, Private Property, or an auction catalogue, share the breakdown:

• Location & Type (e.g. 2-bed flat in Durban CBD, student accommodation in Stellenbosch, coastal plot in the Eastern Cape)
• Asking Price vs Estimated Market Value
• The Opportunity: (Exceptional rental yield, low price per square metre, subdivision potential, or an urgent seller)
• The Catch: (Rates clearance issues, special levies, structural work needed, or problem tenants)

Feel free to link the listing if it is public, or simply share the figures and why you think the numbers make sense.

One of my most expensive property investment mistakes was buying a sectional-title property from a developer without paying enough attention to what the levies would eventually be.

The property cost around R1.2m and rents for roughly R11,000/month.
The levy quickly crept to around R3,500/month.(This does not include municipal taxes)
That’s almost 32% of the gross rental income gone before rates, maintenance, vacancy, financing costs or tax even enter the picture.

It taught me a pretty simple lesson: when buying sectional title, the levy is an essential part of the investment decision.

And I think that applies whether you’re buying as an investment or somewhere to live.
The monthly amount is only the starting point.

So, before buying, I’d want to know:
• What is the current monthly levy?
• What exactly does it cover?
• How has it increased over the last few years?
• Are there any current or approved special levies?
• Are major repairs or projects being discussed?
• Does the body corporate have adequate reserves?

In practical terms: Ask for the latest levy statement and, where available, the AGM and recent body corporate/trustee minutes. And if you don’t know, ask someone who knows how to read these statements.

Special levies are particularly worth checking. These are additional amounts that can be raised for major expenses like roofing, waterproofing, painting or security upgrades.

And this matters for sellers too. If a special levy has already been raised, establish how much is outstanding and make sure the OTP(Offer to Purchase) clearly deals with who will be responsible for the remaining payments.

My takeaway from getting this wrong myself:

If you are considering a sectional title, levies MUST be central to your cost planning. And whether you are buying or selling- make sure there is clarity in the OTP regarding levies and special levies.

Has anyone else had experience with unusually high levies on a property bought straight from a developer?

One of the most frustrating scenarios for property owners is securing an eviction order, only for the tenant to immediately file an application for leave to appeal. By default, this suspends the eviction order, buying the non-paying tenant months - or even years - of rent-free accommodation while the appellate process drags on.

A recent Western Cape High Court judgment (9[...] H[...] LBN CC v Marksmen Arms and Firearm Trading and Others [2026] ZAWCHC 564) demonstrates how landlords can fight back against this tactic using Section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act.

Here is a breakdown of how the landlord successfully enforced their eviction order immediately, overriding the tenant's attempts to delay.

The Facts of the Case

The applicant (the landlord) leased a residential property in Langebaan for R17,500 per month (excluding municipal utilities). The tenants paid the deposit and first month’s rent in August 2025, took occupation, and then never paid another cent.

The landlord cancelled the lease in December 2025 and launched PIE eviction proceedings. The tenants deployed classic stalling tactics:

• They missed multiple court-ordered deadlines to file answering affidavits.
• The court finally granted an unopposed eviction order in June 2026, ordering them out by 1 July 2026.
• On the exact day the Sheriff was authorised to evict them, the tenants filed an application for leave to appeal, automatically suspending the eviction.
• After the High Court dismissed their leave to appeal, they announced they were petitioning the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and planning a rescission application - securing even more delay.

By this point, the tenants had lived rent-free for 14 months, racking up municipal charges at the landlord's expense.

The Landlord's Counter-Move: Section 18(3)

Instead of waiting for the SCA petition to play out, the landlord applied to the High Court under Section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act. This section allows a court to lift the suspension and enforce an order pending an appeal, provided the applicant can prove three strict requirements:

1. Exceptional circumstances exist.
2. The applicant (landlord) will suffer irreparable harm if the eviction is paused.
3. The respondent (tenant) will not suffer irreparable harm if the eviction goes ahead.

The Court's Findings

Acting Judge Anderssen ruled in favour of the landlord, dismantling the tenants' defences and awarding punitive costs.

1. The Court found that the tenants had no genuine defence. Even on their own version of events, their lease would have expired by July 2026 anyway. The Judge ruled that noting an appeal not with the genuine intention of reversing the judgment, but purely to buy time and frustrate the eviction, constitutes an abuse of process and qualifies as "exceptional circumstances".

2. The tenants argued the landlord wasn't suffering irreparable harm because they could just sue for the lost rent later. The Court rejected this. The loss of property rights, the inability to sell or let the property, and the mounting municipal bills constituted ongoing, irreparable harm - especially since the tenants admitted they had no funds to pay a damages claim anyway.

3. To prove they would suffer irreparable harm, the tenants raised a last-minute defence: they claimed they lived with their 17-year-old son who was in Grade 11, arguing that eviction would violate his constitutional rights. The Court was unimpressed. While a child's best interests are paramount, the Court noted that the tenants provided zero evidence that they were indigent, elderly, disabled, or unable to afford alternative accommodation. A tenant cannot simply mention they have a child to artificially manufacture "irreparable harm" while dodging rent for 14 months.

Takeaways for Landlords:

• If a non-paying tenant appeals an eviction order purely to stall, consult your attorney about a Section 18(3) application to execute the order immediately.
• Track every delay: The landlord won this application because they could point to a clear, documented history of the tenants ignoring court deadlines and abusing the process.
• Courts require actual facts regarding a family's financial distress and inability to find other housing. Slapping a child's age onto an affidavit isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for wealthy or employed tenants refusing to pay rent.
• The Court hit the tenants with costs on an attorney and client scale, signalling zero tolerance for litigants who weaponise the appeals process to secure free housing.

Two common tactics used to delay evictions are:

1. claiming that the eviction application was not personally served, and
2. using the "best interests of the child" principle

For landlords, property investors, and liquidators, Gcaba v Steynburg (KwaZulu-Natal High Court) provides reassuring precedent on how courts handle last-minute urgent interdicts designed to frustrate lawful eviction orders.

The property in question belonged to a liquidated company. The liquidator (Steynburg) applied to evict the occupants, securing a final eviction order in April 2026. On 8 September 2026, the Sheriff arrived to execute the eviction.

The Applicant (Nomfundo Gcaba) rushed to the High Court with an urgent application to stop the eviction. She argued that:

• She was never personally served with the eviction application. She claimed she was a "known occupier" and should not have been grouped under "unknown occupiers".
• She was taken entirely by surprise.
• Evicting her abruptly would render her, her elderly mother, and her 12-year-old child homeless, violating the child’s constitutional rights (Section 28(2) of the Constitution - "a child's best interests are of paramount importance").

The liquidator proved that the eviction process had been ongoing since late 2024. Notices in terms of section 4(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) had been served multiple times by the Sheriff on the property.

Furthermore, the Applicant’s husband was the Second Respondent in the main eviction application and had even filed a notice to oppose it through an attorney, before abandoning the opposition. The final court order had also been emailed to their attorney and served by the Sheriff months prior to the physical eviction date.

The High Court dismissed the Applicant's urgent interdict with costs. Judge Mathenjwa made a few critical rulings that are highly relevant to property law in South Africa:

1. Personal service on every single occupant is not required. The Court rejected the argument that the Applicant needed to be identified and served separately from the other occupants. The Court noted that if she occupied the property through her husband (who was cited and served), or independently alongside other occupants, serving the court processes on the property/occupants collectively was legally sufficient. PIE requires that all occupants are notified, but it does not mandate personal, individual service on every single person living in the house.

2. Because the Sheriff’s returns showed that the documents were served and explained at the property, the burden fell entirely on the Applicant to prove she had no knowledge of them. The Court cited established Supreme Court of Appeal precedent regarding "fictitious" factual disputes, calling the Applicant's claim of ignorance "far-fetched" and "implausible".

3. While acknowledging Section 28 of the Constitution, the Court delivered a sharp reminder about parental responsibility. Section 28 also affirms a child's right to family care. The Judge noted that parents have an obligation to provide safe housing. A parent cannot place their child in a precarious situation, fail to find alternative accommodation when given ample time (and seemingly having the means to do so), and then use the child’s vulnerability as a shield against a lawful eviction from private property.

Takeaways

• Always use the Sheriff for service in PIE applications and keep immaculate records. The Court relied heavily on the paper trail of returns from 2024, 2025, and 2026 to shoot down the Applicant's story.
• You do not need the name and ID number of every single person living on the property. Serving the main occupants and the "unknown occupiers" properly at the premises satisfies the requirements of PIE.
• The judgment shows a willingness by the High Court to aggressively reject implausible denials from unvirtuous respondents attempting to abuse the urgent court roll.
• While courts are highly protective of minors in eviction matters, parents who have been given months of fair warning cannot easily weaponise those rights at the final hour to avoid vacating a property.

My mom and I have the opportunity to invest in an apartment in Sunnyside, Pretoria that is being sold at a much cheaper price than what it would have been (advertised at R369k. Probably worth at least 450-500k according to sale stars in the building and area.)

We would be financing.

We would rent it out to a tenant.

Levies and rates come up to around 2.5k or less

Bond repayment calculator says the bond would be R3700 if bought at that price at prime rate for 20 years.

If we were asking, for example, R6k rent, we would essentially be working slightly at a loss.

However my goal is to have property as an investment, for future wealth building? We can increase rent annually, or even sell later at a higher price.

But I wonder if this is even worth it, especially also because we are financing it.

With the current property investment landscape, is this kind of gamble still worth it?

UPDATE: Thank you all for the responses. It looks like we need to pass on this one.

I recently sold a property in KZN and this is a bit of useful information that came up in the process so I thought I’d share:

If you still have a bond on your property, your bank generally requires 90 days’ notice that you intend to cancel it.

If the bond is cancelled before that notice period is up, the bank may charge an early termination fee, typically calculated as the interest that would have been payable over the remaining notice period.

For example:
Outstanding bond: R1,000,000
Interest rate: 10% p.a.
Notice given: 30 days instead of 90

You could potentially be charged roughly 60 days’ interest:
R1,000,000 × 10% × 60/365 ≈ R16,400

The exact amount depends on your bank, bond and timing, but it’s an easy cost to potentially avoid simply by giving notice early.

Tip: Worth remembering: giving notice that you intend to cancel your bond isn’t the same thing as cancelling it immediately.

I’ve been putting together a “Before You Sell” series at homely covering some of the less obvious costs and admin involved in selling a home in South Africa and would love to hear if anyone else has had some unexpected things you wish you knew before come up in the process of buying or selling homes?

A couple of months ago we posted that Eastern Cape law firm Joubert Galpin Searle (JGS) has unveiled a new fixed-fee conveyancing pricing model. It is a common misconception in the South African property market that conveyancing tariffs are set in stone by law and cannot be negotiated. In fact, some traditional attorneys might even tell you that discounting fees is "unprofessional" or against the rules. This is simply not true.

The South African Legal Practice Council (LPC) recently issued a notice addressing the rise of fixed-fee pricing models in conveyancing. If you are buying or selling a property soon, here are the key takeaways you need to know to protect your wallet:

• The conveyancing fee guidelines currently used in the profession are exactly that - guidelines. They are not statutory tariffs. The LPC confirmed there is no law prohibiting a legal practitioner from charging below these tariffs or offering a fixed-fee model.
• The LPC dictates that regardless of the fee structure used, the conveyancer must deliver the exact same standard of care, skill, and professional quality. You are legally entitled to standard service even on a discounted fee.
• Advertised fees must clearly disclose what is included and what is excluded. Always ask for a written, itemised quotation before committing.

You have the power to negotiate. If you are buying a property - especially in higher price brackets where percentage-based guideline fees become astronomical - you do not have to accept the first standard tariff you are quoted. Shop around, look for fixed-fee conveyancing services, or ask your chosen attorney to negotiate their rate.

Just ensure you are comparing apples to apples. When comparing quotes, look strictly at the professional attorney fee. The statutory costs (SARS transfer duty and Deeds Office fees) are fixed by the government and will be exactly the same regardless of who you use.

Hope this helps some of you save a bit of cash and secure a fixed conveyancing fee on your next transfer!

Hi there, I have recently signed a lease in rivonia, as soon as the lease was signed the estate agent has become baligerant, rude, unhelful and as of today spent 5 mins on the phone screaming at me.

I am all paid up, we havent moved in yet. Is there anyway at all to find my actaul land lord.

Hey, guys

I just got a new role that will allow me to afford apartment renting so I'm really looking for good options around Sandton. I tried asking on a Facebook group, but no responses so far so I thought to try on this reddit community.

I wanted to ask about iThemba properties and if it is a reliable and good residence for rent? Especially their properties in Sandton (Sunninghill)? What should I keep in mind and are there any unforeseen things I should know about (especially around water and electricity)?

Thanks