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 03 – 2022

‘LIFE RIGHT’ HOLDERS CAN HALT FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN RETIREMENT SCHEME

Flower Foundation Pretoria Homes for the Aged NPC v Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria and Others (942/2020) [2022] ZASCA 8 (20 January 2022)

Legislation passed to protect holders of life rights in retirement schemes has the effect that, unless their permission is obtained for further development on the land, such plans may not be proceeded with. If this is the scheme developer’s intention, careful planning will be necessary. This judgment illustrates that where the property’s title deed is endorsed to record the fact that a life right scheme exists thereon, as is prescribed, plans to develop ‘unused’ portions of that land is likely to hit snags.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

WHO MAY GIVE THE ‘OK’ FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ON A BUILDING?

Body Corporate of the Overbeek Building, Cape Town v Independent Outdoor Media (Pty) Ltd and Others (4838/2021 ; 3491/2016) [2022] ZAWCHC 2 (21 January 2022)

The Cape Town building on which a gigantic ‘Zuma Must Fall’ billboard was erected in 2016 is the subject of this judgment. It deals with a spat between the advertiser, the body corporate of the building and the City of Cape Town which that message triggered – but technically turned on a decision whether it was proper for the City to have made the by-law despite national legislation requiring ministerial consent in respect of the erection of buildings. The outdoor marketing, the Court held, was a function of the local authority, and insofar as the National Building Standards Act infringed on that function, it was unconstitutional. A victory for the City’s by-law making powers.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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