Following the Constitutional Court’s partial (and rather vague) legalisation of private, personal use/possession/cultivation of cannabis in 2018, the new “Cannabis for Private Purposes Act” has finally been signed into law. 

But, contrary to the impression created by many excited media reports, the Act is not yet in force, nor does it set “maximum amounts” of plants or dried cannabis that can be possessed or cultivated. Let’s have a look at what the Act actually does say, and at what it will, when it commences, allow and not allow…

We’ve all grumbled at having to go and find a commissioner of oaths in a police station or bank just to attest an affidavit, and in these days of online meetings and electronic signature and storage of documents, it seems positively archaic that we can’t do everything remotely.

But, as the relevant Regulations are currently worded, face-to-face physical commissioning seems to remain the only guaranteed way of ensuring that your affidavit will be accepted in court. We’ll discuss why that is with reference to three recent High Court decisions with different facts and differing outcomes.

“Rouwkoop”

Mostly found in property sale agreements, a “rouwkoop” (literally, “regret-purchase”) clause sets out how much a party who wants to pull out of the agreement without breaching it agrees to pay the other for the privilege. The concept is sometimes confused with that of a “forfeiture of deposit” or “penalty” clause which applies only if the sale agreement is breached. The distinction is subtle but if you see the word “rouwkoop” in an agreement, be on your guard. Whilst only penalties that are proportional to the loss suffered are allowed by our law, you could inadvertently be agreeing to something you will regret later on.