Ask any ouk who has had to do military service of the meaning of the word “omkeer” – about turn.
Sometime in June we received Registrar’s Circular 7 of 2010 which placed an outright ban on the restoration of deeds [other than in two exceptional cases].
Restoration is the process whereby a deed that has been rejected by the Deeds office, is “restored” without having to go through the whole process of re-lodgment, etc. This was particularly useful where the rejection error was one that was easily corrected or where, as sometimes happened, the deeds office erroneously rejected a deed which it should not have done.
Now, it only seems fair that if a deed has been rejected because a deeds office examiner made an error, that the deeds office says “Oops, sorry, we slipped up and we will make amends by restoring the deed”.
No, said the Registrar, even in that case, no more restorations.
I subsequently learnt that this circular was the reaction by the Registrars (of Deeds) to the fraud that had taken place when several Johannesburg Municipality properties had been fraudulently transferred. So, because of the misdeeds of some deeds office officials, all of us are now “punished”.
But, I am happy to report, the Registrar of Deeds at Pietermaritzburg has withdrawn Circular 7 of 2010, i.e. she has done an “omkeer”.
I heard through the grapevine via my esteemed Pietermaritzburg colleague, that the deeds office was “threatened” with High Court Action, hence the omkeer.
Regards,
Sieg
Quote:
“ The world has moved on and morals have changed. Divorce, which in earlier days was available in the event of adultery or desertion only, is now available in the event of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Guilt is no longer an issue. There is no reason why a just cause for ending an engagement should not likewise include the lack of desire to marry the particular person, irrespective of the “guilt” of the latter. Unwillingness to marry is clear evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of the engagement. It appears illogical to attach more serious consequences to an engagement than to a marriage.”
Per Harms DP in the Appeal Court decision of Van Jaarsveld v Bridges 2010 (4) SA 558 in a “breach of promise to marry” case which involved as the claimant, the daughter of the late Bles Bridges. [And this is to my friend Pierre of Pretoria: how far have we moved since the long journey from Cape Town to Johannesburg as described in Guggenheim v Rosenbaum?]
Sometime in June we received Registrar’s Circular 7 of 2010 which placed an outright ban on the restoration of deeds [other than in two exceptional cases].
Restoration is the process whereby a deed that has been rejected by the Deeds office, is “restored” without having to go through the whole process of re-lodgment, etc. This was particularly useful where the rejection error was one that was easily corrected or where, as sometimes happened, the deeds office erroneously rejected a deed which it should not have done.
Now, it only seems fair that if a deed has been rejected because a deeds office examiner made an error, that the deeds office says “Oops, sorry, we slipped up and we will make amends by restoring the deed”.
No, said the Registrar, even in that case, no more restorations.
I subsequently learnt that this circular was the reaction by the Registrars (of Deeds) to the fraud that had taken place when several Johannesburg Municipality properties had been fraudulently transferred. So, because of the misdeeds of some deeds office officials, all of us are now “punished”.
But, I am happy to report, the Registrar of Deeds at Pietermaritzburg has withdrawn Circular 7 of 2010, i.e. she has done an “omkeer”.
I heard through the grapevine via my esteemed Pietermaritzburg colleague, that the deeds office was “threatened” with High Court Action, hence the omkeer.
Regards,
Sieg
Quote:
“ The world has moved on and morals have changed. Divorce, which in earlier days was available in the event of adultery or desertion only, is now available in the event of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Guilt is no longer an issue. There is no reason why a just cause for ending an engagement should not likewise include the lack of desire to marry the particular person, irrespective of the “guilt” of the latter. Unwillingness to marry is clear evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of the engagement. It appears illogical to attach more serious consequences to an engagement than to a marriage.”
Per Harms DP in the Appeal Court decision of Van Jaarsveld v Bridges 2010 (4) SA 558 in a “breach of promise to marry” case which involved as the claimant, the daughter of the late Bles Bridges. [And this is to my friend Pierre of Pretoria: how far have we moved since the long journey from Cape Town to Johannesburg as described in Guggenheim v Rosenbaum?]
No comments:
Post a Comment