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 10 – 2022


The Body Corporate of Brushwood Sectional Title Scheme vs Whitfields Property Management (Pty) Ltd (17078/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 358 (26 May 2022)

It is not often that a matter is reported dealing with the termination of a managing agent appointment. The circumstances giving rise to the breakdown herein aside, the Court highlighted that one must remember that the relationship between a body corporate and managing agent is one of agency and mandate. Under our common law, a mandate is in general terminable at the will of the principal and it would be against public policy to coerce a principal into retaining an agent when he no longer wishes to have him as such. Apart from this, the judgment is instructive as it highlights the powers of trustees to pass a resolution to terminate a contract with a managing agent in circumstances where the trustee appointments were not finalised at the schemes’ previous AGM.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment


The Body Corporate of the Sorronto Sectional Title Scheme, Parow v Koordom and Another (5439/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 99 (26 May 2022)

This matter deals with a body corporate’s successful action to hold an owner responsible for certain costs it had to expend to gain access to a unit to perform a leak inspection. The owner refused, up until the steps of the court, as he argued that he had on a previous occasion granted such access. However, with a recurring leak in a neighbouring unit, the body corporate needed to investigate the matter further so as to maintain the scheme, as prescribed by law. The recalcitrant behaviour had come back to bite, costing the owner.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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