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 – 2024


Malakite Body Corporate and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (A2023/050651) [2024] ZAGPJHC 397 (15 April 2024)

The argument that a gym and restaurant facility within a residential development, restricted for use by occupants and owners, is ancillary to the development’s main residential purpose and that the electricity supply should be charged at a domestic tariff, is attractive but not convincing, said the court. In this matter, the court stated that tariff determination is based on the nature and usage of facilities, rather than a development’s internal administration or intent. This formed the basis for the City of Johannesburg’s determination of its tariff policy, by-laws, and electricity regulations. Therefore, the City validly applied a commercial tariff for the electricity supplied to the development. The development’s management body did not take up the option to apply for separated tariffs for the different uses of land in the development due to its belief that this was not necessary.

Developers and management bodies of such schemes are well advised to engage with the local authority in the area of a proposed development to identify which options are available for tariff determination in such mixed-use developments.

The judgment below explains the reasoning.

The judgment can be viewed here
Summary of the Judgment


Brand v Brand and Another (16230/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 116 (26 April 2024)

If one peruses the weekly lists of judgments handed down in our High Courts, it is striking how many matters deal with rows arising within family trusts. There are likely to be many more that do not reach the courts, whether due to lack of funds or other reasons. This matter highlights a complaint that is often heard in these cases: A ‘dominant’ trustee neglected his duty to act in the best interests of the trust (in this instance, by leaving the matters in the hands of his mother in a Power of Attorney to that effect), and snubbed the other trustee’s requests for access to meetings and records. The court ordered the removal of the trustee and, sensibly, the appointment of two additional qualified and independent trustees. Costs in the matter were loaded onto the shoulders of the errant trustee, to be paid from his personal account.

The judgment below is a valuable reminder that considerable care should go into directing, in the trust’s founding document, who is eligible to hold the position of a trustee.

The Judgment can be viewed here
Summary of the Judgment

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