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 16 – 2024

HOLDER OF A RIGHT OF EXTENSION IN A SECTIONAL TITLE SCHEME: WHEN DOES LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE CONTRIBUTION ARISE?

Club Kerkira (Pty) Limited v Trustees of Club Kerkira Body Corporate and Others (D11451/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 40 (4 June 2024)

For the sixteen owners in the Kerkira sectional title scheme, it was onerous to maintain the 44-hectare development, which was destined to house 101 owners once the anticipated phases 2, 3, and 4 of the project were finalised. This was especially true when the developer and holder of the right of extension refused to pay levies related to the maintenance of the common property over which it held the right to extend. The developer argued that it was only liable to cover maintenance expenses after they had been incurred by the body corporate, because the legislation requires it to make payments of amounts “necessary to defray” the costs.

The judgment and summary below highlight why the court found in favour of the body corporate.

The judgment can be viewed here
Summary of the Judgment

PURCHASER SIGNING ON BEHALF OF AN ENTITY TO BE FORMED HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE

Jordaan v Rajcic (2023/034165) [2024] ZAGPJHC 525 (31 May 2024)

For the sixteen owners in the Kerkira sectional title scheme, it was onerous to maintain the 44-hectare development, which was destined to house 101 owners once the anticipated phases 2, 3, and 4 of the project were finalised. This was especially true when the developer and holder of the right of extension refused to pay levies related to the maintenance of the common property over which it held the right to extend. The developer argued that it was only liable to cover maintenance expenses after they had been incurred by the body corporate, because the legislation requires it to make payments of amounts “necessary to defray” the costs.

The judgment and summary below highlight why the court found in favour of the body corporate.

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