This website is
 

 Welcome    Main    Forum    FAQ    Useful Links    Sample Letters   Tribunal  

GENERALLY, buying a landed property may appear to be a straightforward affair. Whether it is a house or an apartment or a commercial property, the underlying principles are the same. There should not be any problems.

A reader wants to know if, when a Sale and Purchase Agreement is drawn up and the transaction is handled by a lawyer, the buyer is absolutely safe so long as he has the means, either via cash or a loan, to meet the purchase price?

The fact that the transaction is handled by a lawyer is not a guarantee that there would be no problems in carrying out the transaction or after the transaction has been completed.

Many elements and factors are involved in the acquisition of a property. Depending on the nature of the property involved, input from different people and parties may be required. A lack of input in the appropriate manner may lead to complications and difficulties.

A buyer of a piece of land may provide his lawyer with the title and lot number of the land with its location. A copy of the title may also be furnished. The lawyer will make a search to see whether there are any encumbrances.

The purchase price may be deposited with or paid to the lawyer who, after taking the necessary steps to have the ownership of the land transferred to the buyer, releases the purchase price to the seller. The transaction has at this stage been completed.

However, when the purchaser proceeds to use the land he finds that the land is unsuitable for the purpose he had in mind. It may be that the land is in a swampy area where he cannot plant the crops he planned to, for example.

In such a situation the lawyer who handled the transaction and was unaware of the purchaser's undisclosed intention has dealt with the matter as instructed. What should the buyer have done in such a situation?

The purchaser should have disclosed to his lawyer his plans for the land and to ensure that appropriate provisions were included. If this were the case it would have been helpful to engage a surveyor or some other suitable specialist who could examine the land and provide the necessary advice.

It would also be necessary to have incorporated appropriate provisions requiring the seller to give undertakings and warranties to ensure that the land was suitable for the purpose. Whether a seller would be prepared to give such an undertaking and to what extent would be a separate matter.

A different kind of problem could arise from the phrase “free from all encumbrances” commonly used in Sale and Purchase Agreements.

A building may be constructed on the land belonging to the buyer but there may be various types of protrusions which extend into the airspace of an adjoining land which at the point of time of the purchase was vacant.

Apart from protrusions, the previous owner may have constructed a fence or even a structure that encroaches onto the adjoining part of land which on ordinary physical inspection may not be obvious or appear to be of little or no significance.

However, there may come a time when the owner of the adjoining land may want to occupy the land and to construct a structure on it. Such a person would be entitled to every inch of the land which belongs to him.

If the local authorities have made a mistake in giving approval in circumstances where there has been an encroachment, this does not deprive the aggrieved party from asserting its rights.

However, instances where approval was given by a local authority even though there is a form of encroachment into the space of another are not unknown. Such approvals are in all likelihood conditional so as to protect the interest of the person who could as a result be aggrieved.

But such conditional approvals are not reflected by way of endorsement on the documents of title and therefore are not easily discoverable by the intended buyer of the property who must in such cases protect himself with appropriate undertakings. Such incursions would in law amount to trespass onto the adjoining land of the neighbour to which he is entitled to object.

The purchaser will naturally feel that he is innocent because when he bought the property it was in that condition and with those features.

He will not be able to see the justification of giving up on these and even worse, incurring expenses to have such incursions removed.

The purchaser may also feel that when he bought the property it had been approved by the local authorities and that this would be an indication of his righteousness and that he should now not be liable for such alleged wrongdoing.

All this, however, will not constitute a valid argument against the neighbour onto whose land there has been trespass by the purchaser.

No one including the local authorities would have the right to allow one person to encroach into the property of another or to deprive anyone of his property rights.

Return to List