05/10/2026
๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ฅ๐ง๐๐ก๐ง ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ข๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ก๐ง: ๐ฆ๐๐๐ก๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐ง๐ฆ ๐ข๐ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ข๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐ง๐ฌ
Traditionally, agreements for the sale of immovable property in South Africa have been signed in wet ink as required by law.
In the recent judgment of Shifa Picton Apartments (Pty) Ltd v Beachmaster Investments 700 (Pty) Ltd and Others [2026] ZAWCHC 567, delivered on 30 September 2026, the purchaserโs representative signed his signature in wet ink on a separate sheet of paper, scanned it into his laptop, and then electronically attached the scanned signature to the agreements of sale.
The Western Cape High Court held that this method of signing complied with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981, requiring a wet ink signature. The Court found it important that the signature was the signatoryโs genuine handwritten signature, that he authorised its placement on the completed agreements, and that he intended it to authenticate the agreements and bind the purchaser.
This does not mean that all forms of electronic signature are automatically valid for agreements of sale of immovable property. However, the judgment is an important and practical development, particularly as the use of scanned handwritten signatures has become commonplace in modern transactions.
Wet-ink signature on the actual agreement remains the safest practice, but it is no longer correct to assume that an agreement is necessarily invalid merely because a scanned copy of a genuine handwritten signature was inserted electronically.
๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ค๐ต ๐ถ๐ด ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ข๐ฏ๐บ ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด: 018 293 0361
