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 06 – 2020

Marais N.O. and Another v Maposa and Others (642/2018) [2020] ZASCA 23 (25 March 2020)

Where A, married in community of property to B, donates valuables to C with whom he was in a longstanding relationship and with whom he had a second family, what must C show to a court that the donation was valid despite the fact that B had no knowledge thereof? The Matrimonial Property Act states that where parties are married in community of property each can in general deal with assets as they please, except that consent from the other is necessary in certain instances, such as a donation. However, it also provides that where one spouse acts in contravention hereof in a transaction with a third party, that transaction will be deemed to be valid, despite the absence of the consent, if the third party could not reasonably have known that such consent was necessary but not obtained.
The Judgment can be viewed here.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment


Auckland Park Theological Seminary v University of Johannesburg (1160/2018) [2019] ZASCA 24 (25 March 2020)Friday, 03 April 2020

It happens so often that parties conclude a written agreement, stating that the content thereof embodies the full extent of their obligations, and then afterwards, when problems arise, they seek to introduce details that they thought were common cause. In the present case, the university leased property to a company under a registered long term lease. When the company ceded these rights to a third party which sought to effect certain alteration, it was suddenly argued that the initial lease was unique and particular to the parties involved, and therefore incapable of cession. The judgment illustrates the difficulties and highlights again how important it is to make sure that agreements contain a proper (and informed) record of the parties’ intentions.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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