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 11 – 2023


Stay At South Point Properties (Pty) Ltd v Mqulwana and Others (UCT intervening as amicus curiae) (1335/2021) [2023] ZASCA 108 (3 July 2023)

In this matter the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (“PIE”) does not apply in instances where students are evicted from residences at a higher education institution. The judgment is very important for universities across the country. Beware though that in many news reports and internet articles on this judgment, there appears to be a presumption that the judgment applies to student accommodation generally. This is not so.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment


The Body Corporate Marsh Rose v Steinmuller and Others (A5002/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 440 (23 September 2021)

One item that invariably finds itself on the agenda of trustee meetings is the issue of non-compliance by owners with the rules. Many of these, such as the failure to obtain building approval and to comply with architectural building guidelines, are detrimental to the well-being of the scheme and the interests of the individual owners. What can the body corporate do?

Even if the rules allow the trustees to impose penalties in respect of the transgressions, a headstrong owner who denies that he transgressed a rule, or one that is struggling financially, soon accumulates a hefty outstanding penalty liability (often in conjunction with being in arrears with levy payments). In these circumstances a body corporate may feel perfectly entitled to withhold its consent to transfer, where such an owner has sold his unit, by refusing to issue the “clearance certificate” that the owner will need for transfer, unless the penalties for transgressions of the rules are paid. The judgment advises why this practice of body corporates is not within the powers granted to body corporates in the Sectional Titles Act.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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