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 2 – 2024

GUARANTEE OR SURETYSHIP: THEIR DIFFERENCES MATTER

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Wardkiss Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd (9324/22) [2023] ZAKZPHC 153 (19 December 2023)

The distinction “often turns on a knife edge”, says academics, and telling a guarantee apart from a suretyship is vital before committing yourself to either. The judgment below is a practical illustration of the differences and consequences. This in the context of a company that signed a document, titled ‘guarantee,’ in respect of a related entity’s obligations to a bank. When the latter was liquidated, the company sought to escape liability, arguing that the terms of the document was really that of a suretyship; that the legal requirements for signature of a suretyship were not complied with and that the document was therefore invalid.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

A SPAT IS NO GREEN LIGHT TO PULL THE CARPET FROM UNDER A STATE OF AFFAIRS

Bodies Under Construction CC and Others v Permasolve Investments (Pty) Ltd (19457/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 326 (20 December 2023)

Believing that you are entitled to charge your tenants added contributions for costs arising from a generator (or any other service rendered to the leased property) is one thing. So is your conviction that your right to do so is provided for in an agreement. But it is quite another thing to, unilaterally, deprive your tenant of his decade long use of the generator; and it is also unlawful, as this judgment shows. Of particular legal interest is the Court’s recognition that the facts established that the use was so closely linked to the tenant’s possession of the premises that it constituted quasi possession, which made it possible for the tenant to launch spoliation proceedings.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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