Maryna holds the BA, LLB, LLM degrees and is a Director at the Cape Town branch of STBB. She is an admitted Attorney, Notary Public, Conveyancer and Insolvency Practitioner with many years of experience in the fields of property law,
conveyancing and the laws relating to corporate compliance (especially in respect of the FICA and POPIA laws). Up until 2018 she was also head of the firm’s national marketing portfolio. She is a seasoned public speaker and presenter, both in person and online. She prepares text for the majority of STBB’s internal and external publications and is editor and co-writer for two pivotal publications in the South African real estate industry – the ABC of Conveyancing (JUTA) and Delport’s South African Property Law and Practice (JUTA).
TENANT’S ‘RIGHT TO BUY’ PORTION OF A FARM TRUMPED WHEN THE WHOLE FARM IS SOLD?
Platterkloof RMS Broedery (Pty) Ltd v Dahlia Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (7836/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 1 (4 January 2021)
In this case a lessee of two portions of a farm that consisted of six portions sought to exercise his pre-emptive rights when the farm was sold as a whole. The pre-emptive rights related to the two portions only and the lessee argued that, at the time of the sale to the third party, the owner of the farm was duty bound and contractually obligated to offer the two portions to him by virtue of the pre-emptive right. The Court held however that, in the absence of provisions in the pre-emption clause to the contrary, this was not so simple.
Vukeya v Ntshane and Others (518/2019) [2020] ZASCA 167 (11 December 2020)
Where a husband who is married in community of property sells land without the consent or knowledge of his spouse to an unsuspecting purchaser, is the law on the side of the wife or the purchaser?
Insofar as the spouse sought relief against the purchaser, the Matrimonial Property Act provides that a balance between the interests of the non-consenting spouse, on the one hand, and the bona fide third party, on the other, must be achieved. If the purchaser made a reasonable effort to ascertain what the seller’s marital status was, he is entitled to rely thereon and the court will not order cancellation of the sale and transfer. The outcome in this judgment is an illustration on point.
