When is a landowner responsible for a fire that spread beyond his property?

“I own a small holding of a few hectares. Recently, with the heavy winds in the region a veld fire started on my property. I’m still not sure what happened, but the fire spread quickly, despite my attempts to stop it, to my neighbour’s property and caused damage to some of his sheds before we could get it under control. Needless to say, my neighbour is very upset about the damage and I think is contemplating holding me responsible. Can he hold me liable for the damage?”

Your question is of concern to many landowners. The primary piece of legislation relating to the responsibilities of land owners in respect of veldfires is the National Veld & Forest Fire Act 101 of 1998 (the “Act”). Section 34 of the Act is particularly relevant when it comes to the liability of a landowner. It establishes a presumption of negligence against the landowner by providing that: 

“34(1) If a person who brings civil proceedings proves that he or she suffered loss from a veldfire which –
(a) the defendant [ie. the landowner]* caused; or
(b) started on or spread on or spread from land owned by the defendant,
the defendant is presumed to have been negligent in relation to the veldfire until the contrary is proved, unless the defendant is a member of a fire protection association in the area where the fire occurred”.

*our explanation added

It must be noted that despite the presumption of negligence, the plaintiff must still prove that any act taken or omission by the defendant was wrongful. 

In analysing the responsibility of a landowner, our courts found in the recent case of MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Swart NO that a reasonable landowner was not obliged to ensure that in all circumstances a fire on its property would not spread beyond its boundaries.. A landowner simply has an obligation to ensure that he has taken reasonable steps to prevent the veldfire from occurring and negligence will not be imputed to the landowner, if notwithstanding reasonable steps, a fire still spreads to an opposite, adjacent or any other adjoining land/property. 

In order to establish what reasonable steps would be, the Act provides guidance in respect of establishing firebreaks, having fire-fighting equipment on hand, having trained personnel who are capable of fighting fires, alert landowners nearby of a veldfire occurring, etc. If the landowner does not have such reasonable measures in place, and is seen to not have exercised urgency to minimise the crisis, then he/she may be held negligent through operation of the presumption contained in section 34 of the Act.

The Act provides for the presumption of negligence not to be present where a landowner is part of a Fire Protection Assocation in the region of his land. Through membership of such an association, the Act intends for landowners to be more prepared and have measures in place to prevent and combat veldfires. As a result the presumption of negligence is not applied, although it does not obviate the fact that negligence can still be proven, but then without the benefit of presumed negligence.

In your case, unless you are part of a Fire Protection Association, there will be presumed negligence on your part in relation to the veldfire. This can however be negated by showing that you did take all reasonable measures as required by the Act. It may be advisable to consult with your attorney and ensure that you record all the measures taken by you should your neighbour decide to institute action against you for his damage.

November 16, 2017
Section 8C explained: Tax tips for employee share schemes

Section 8C explained: Tax tips for employee share schemes

Employee share schemes are often introduced to reward, retain, or align employees with long-term business growth. However, under section 8C of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the “Income Tax Act”), these arrangements can create significant and unexpected tax liabilities for employees when equity instruments vest. This article explains how section 8C operates, what qualifies as an “equity instrument,” and why careful structuring of share schemes is essential to avoid punitive tax outcomes.

The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The South African legislative framework regards backdated shares as a suspicious and illegal practice, as it arises when a share issue or transfer is recorded as having occurred on an earlier date than the actual transaction. While backdating may be viewed as an administrative oversight, the consequences may constitute compliance risk, serious misconduct on directors, beneficial owners and compliance officers who authorise the backdating of share transactions. This is because backdated shares may manipulate the timing of funds, obscure the source of funds, and distort a company’s beneficial ownership structure.

Tax transparency matters: Are your deals reportable?

Tax transparency matters: Are your deals reportable?

Some deals come with hidden reporting duties. Find out when your transactions could trigger SARS disclosure rules, and how to stay compliant. You may have heard the term “reportable arrangement” in tax conversations around commercial transactions. It sounds technical, and it is, but at its core, it’s about transparency. The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) seeks information on certain transactions that could be used to avoid or reduce tax. If you enter a reportable arrangement, you may be legally required to report it. Failure to comply can result in significant penalties.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest