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 21 – 2020


Henque 1273 CC v Du Plessis and Others (2119/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 160 (7 September 2020)
The judgment deals with disputes that arose when a Trust purported to cancel one property sale agreement and proceeded to sell the property to a next purchaser. The disgruntled first purchaser, in an attempt to interdict transfer to the second purchaser, raised the argument that the Trust was not properly before the Court as the resolution, signed by two of the three trustees (the trust document requiring a majority vote), was inadequate. The question answered here is whether in such circumstances, if two trustees constituting the required majority, agree on action to be taken, the input of or meeting with the third trustee at all necessary? The outcome is significant for every trustee acting on behalf of a trust, whatever the transaction and not only limited to property sale agreements.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment


Helm Construction (Pty) Ltd v Noortman and Another (22605/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 245 (21 September 2020)
This judgment deals with a dispute between a tenant and landlord who entered into, what they phrased, a “provisional sale agreement” regarding a piece of agricultural land. No purchase price was determined, nor was it decided and recorded how it should be paid, when the final sale agreement will be concluded or when transfer should take place. The purchaser had paid in excess of R2 million towards the purchase price when the wheels came off, culminating in a (successful) court action by him against the seller to get his money back. “Penny wise, pound foolish” comes to mind considering that much trouble, cost and loss could have been avoided had the parties first consulted with a property lawyer or law firm.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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