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 13 – 2022


Wilrus Trading CC v The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (36299/22) [2022] ZAGPPHC 509 (15 July 2022)

In addition to the load shedding woes, imagine the anguish of a tenant who finds that its electricity has been cut because the landlord failed to pay the relevant amounts to the municipality. This is in essence what prompted the tenant to approach the court for assistance, having paid the relevant dues to its landlord at all times. The tenant argued that constitutional court cases have held that the land owner as well as tenants have a right to be informed of a planned termination of electricity supply. Indeed, but does this apply in all instances? No, said the court here, and explained how the differentiation works.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment


Crawford v Goodman (21/37617) [2022] ZAGPJHC 435 (1 July 2022)

It is well known that when a property is co-owned, one owner can apply to court for an order that the co-ownership be terminated, whether by ordering a sale of the whole property to a third party, or a sale of one partner’s share to the other. What made this judgment interesting was that the evidence showed that the erstwhile romantic partners had also, tacitly, established a universal partnership when the house was purchased, and that each partner therefore had a claim in respect of the partnership. This is where the difficulty arose because, as was argued here, the partnership did not necessarily terminate with the break-up. The Court agreed, but explained how conduct could signify the break-up of both the personal relationship and the universal partnership.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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