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 12-2020

NO FFC, NO COMMISSION – UNLESS YOUR DUCKS WERE IN A ROW

Signature Real Estate (Pty) Ltd v Charles Edwards Properties and Others (415/2019) [2020] ZASCA 63 (10 June 2020)

In this important judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of Appeal, it was held that in certain very narrow instances, an estate agent will not be precluded from claiming commission where the Fidelity Fund Certificate was not in place at the relevant time. The matter relates to an instance where the estate agent had timeously submitted all documents to the Estate Agency Affairs Board, the latter however accidentally issuing an incorrect certificate in the name of a non-existing entity. This error was subsequently corrected, with retrospective effect. The Court held that their claim for commission in this instance could not be thwarted by the argument that they were not in possession of a valid Fidelity Fund Certificate at the time.
The Judgment can be viewed here.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

RIGHT TO EXTEND: SOLD BUT NOT RESERVED
A tricky question arose in this judgment. In terms of a sale agreement, the purchaser bought both a unit and a right to extend from the developer of a sectional title scheme. The right to extend was never formally reserved (by application in the deeds office). When the purchaser later sought to exercise this right, the members of the body corporate refused consent, which lead to an application to court. No success yet for the purchaser, as the Court found that the purchaser did not have the required locus standi. Read the judgment to find out why.
The Judgment can be viewed here.

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