Maryna holds the BA, LLB, LLM degrees and is a Director at the Cape Town offices of STBB. She is an admitted Attorney, Notary Public and Conveyancer with many years of experience in the field of property law and conveyancing. She is also the firm's Marketing Director and attends to external publications for the firm as well as conducts ongoing training for estate agent and bankers training and is a regular seminar presenter for attorneys and property practitioners.

Property Law Update | Issue 10 – 2020

OCCUPIER WITH IMPROVEMENT LIEN AND THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER
Lakka v Beukes and Another (CA&R 60/2018) [2020] ZANCHC 11 (23 March 2020)

What happens if on transfer, the new owner finds an occupier in the home who refuses to move, claiming an improvement lien? The improvements in this instance were effected at a time when the seller was still owner and hence the purchaser was not the enriched party. The new owner, on the other hand, was thwarted in an attempt to evict the occupier because the occupation as a result of the right of retention was not unlawful in our law. The judgment illustrates the applicable principles.
The Judgment can be viewed here

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

EXCLUSIVE USE DISPUTE AT CSOS: CHALLENGING THE OUTCOME WITH APPEAL OR REVIEW?
Turley Manor Body Corporate v Pillay and Others (10662/18) [2020] ZAFSHC 54 (6 March 2020)

The establishment of the Community Schemes Ombud service in 2016 introduced a simpler mechanism for resolution of (certain) disputes in sectional title schemes. It is not without challenges, one being the rights of appeal against a finding of an adjudicator. The judgment highlights that whilst appeal is allowed on questions of law (excluding an appeal on a finding of merits), the adjudicator’s finding may be reviewed in terms of PAJA which can result in overturning a finding. It is important for an attorney to guide participants in the differences between bringing an appeal and a review against a finding of the Ombud.
The Judgment can be viewed here

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment