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 18 – 2020

CLAIMING ARREAR RENTAL TODAY AND LOSS OF FUTURE RENTAL TOMORROW: THE “ONCE OF RULE.Brett N.O and Others v Kushner (CA 61/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 86 (13 August 2020)

This judgment raises an interesting point. Our common law has a “once off rule” requiring, in essence, that where a claim arises as a result of a single reason (cause of action), then the claimant must exhaust his options once-off, and may not bring alternate actions in respect of the same cause of action in drips and drabs. In a lease agreement that was prematurely cancelled due to the tenant’s failure to pay the rental, would the “once off rule” prohibit the landlord to claim arrear rental and subsequently, in a new action, claim damages resulting from the future loss of rental? The judgment highlights how the court interprets the claims of the landlord in such instance.

The Judgment 
Summary of the Judgment

MASTS ONLY WITH MUNICIPAL APPROVAL
Telkom SA SOC Limited v City of Cape Town and Another (CCT287/19) [2020] ZACC 15 (25 June 2020)

The Constitutional Court sent a clear message in this matter: Telecommunication networks in South Africa cannot ride roughshod over municipal by-laws. Here the municipal by-law required that the relevant land may not be used for masts unless it was appropriately zoned, a provision to which Telkom argued it was not bound. The Court struck their defences down, upholding the authority accorded to municipalities in the Constitution in respect of their designated list of municipal planning functions.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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