The land reform/expropriation debate rages on. Fuelled by populism with an overarching intent to govern, inflammatory statements are made with scant regard to the underlying issues. To meet the expectations thus generated by politicians would be virtually impossible and can only lead to tears. Whilst not PC to think thus, I confess that I have doubts whether a democracy can properly function in a disparate society; democracy was not designed for societies such ours. The difficulty with this tack is that it negates what is become acceptable as a fundamental right, i.e. the right of each, irrespective of the insight, to decide who governs him. Allowing all to thus decide is at once the strength of democracy and its weakness.


I have expressed agreement with an opinion by another that the land need of the poor is, not for farms, but for urban properties. Such developments have been the preserve of private developers with the state involving itself in primarily low-cost housing. If the state were to expropriate urban land, who would bear the cost of the development, given that the land acquisition and cost is probably by far the least expensive or onerous obligation when developing? Once the state expropriate it becomes a developer, a role to which it is particularly unsuited.


FNB reported that financial stress in the residential property market has declined significantly (sales owing to financial pressure declined from 14.2% in the 4th qaurter of last year to 12.1% in the 1st quarter of this year). This improvement is reflected in Ooba reporting the highest home loan approval rate in 10 years. One of the factors, weighing in on this report, is that the average deposit for firstt-time buyers, as a percentage of the purchase price, is decreasing.


What happens when you do not get your full contracted for bond within the period stipulated, but pay in the difference to the conveyancer? In the case below the contract between the parties provided that, if the full bond was not obtained, that contract would lapse. Has a contract, pragmatically speaking, been complied with or may it be cancelled for want of proper performance, if the purchaser provides for the full purchase price but not in the format agreed upon? The court argued that a suspensive condition of this nature was in favour of the purchaser and he could waive this, which was done via the tender of guarantees plus cash, see ¶ 30. In other words, a purchaser may elect to take lower bond and give more cash as the condition of obtaining the bond is in his favour and may thus be done away with at least partially.