During his address to the media televised last night, Malema, in trying to extricate himself from reports that he was the director of various companies which received lucrative government tenders, stated that he had “given his attorneys instructions” to process his resignation from one or more of these companies some time ago. Now it appears that he is still listed on CIPRO’s records as being the director of one such company, SGL. I wonder whether Malema will blame his attorneys, Cipro, the media, or some other outside body for not ensuring that he was no longer recorded as a director?

It got me thinking about our conveyancing process and the point at which the conveyancer’s involvement in a transaction ceases. Is it all over, barring the final forwarding of title deeds at a later stage, when the matter is registered and everyone has been paid? Or must the conveyancer also oversee the formal handing over of the property and then, if the purchaser discovers that the Seller has removed a carport or has generally left the place in shocking state, must that same conveyancer now address the issue with the Seller? If the conveyancer does so, and this is clearly a case of a dispute or potential dispute between Seller and Purchaser, whose side does the conveyancer take? The Seller? The Purchaser? Is the conveyancer even allowed to take sides? And if he does, is he not acting in bad faith and contrary to the Law Society’s Rules and rulings? And who pays her / his further fees?

My advice to a purchaser yesterday to lay a criminal charge against the Seller for theft of the carport and to seek urgent legal advice from his own attorney, was answered with a long diatribe which in essence portrayed me somewhat dismally. And he then went on to say all sorts of nasty things about the estate agents, who, by the way, never represented him. They had a mandate from the Seller to sell the seller’s property and the Seller paid them a commission.
Regards,
Sieg