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).

Property Law Update | Issue 02 – 2022


Pretorius v Bedwell (659/2020) [2022] ZASCA 4 (11 January 2022)

When the relationship between contracting parties sour, there is often a pointing of fingers as to which one was the cause of the ultimate failure of the agreement. It is important to identify the ‘guilty’ one, because the innocent party then has certain rights. In this matter, a purchaser reneged on an agreement with the seller to retransfer the property to him (the erstwhile seller), and sold the property to a third party. As a lot of time had passed since, questions of prescription arose, with one party claiming that his actions showed that he had repudiated the agreement and that, as more than three years had elapsed, the claim had prescribed. The court here clarified what type of conduct would be necessary to prove that there indeed was repudiation.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment


Smuts and Another v Botha (887/2020) [2022] ZASCA 3 (10 January 2022)

When taking part in a cycling event that traversed some farms, a cyclist took photos of a porcupine and baboon that had apparently died because they were left in cages without water. An animal activist became involved and posted the pictures on Facebook, together with details of the owner and the farm location. Unsurprisingly this caused an outcry and the farm owner approached the courts for protection of his rights to privacy, arguing that it was unnecessary to identify him in person. The matter ended in the Supreme Court of Appeal which confirmed that, on the specific facts of this matter, the right to freedom of expression and the public interest would trump the farmer’s rights. It was relevant that the farmer’s information that appeared in the post was in fact already in the public domain. The judgment explains how our law deals with claims that result from the tension between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

For the best legal advice and personalised service, let's talk
Subscribe to our monthly newsletters, subscribe