Maryna holds the BA, LLB, LLM degrees and is a Director at the Cape Town offices of STBB. She is an admitted Attorney, Notary Public and Conveyancer with many years of experience in the field of property law and conveyancing. She is also the firm's Marketing Director and attends to external publications for the firm as well as conducts ongoing training for estate agent and bankers training and is a regular seminar presenter for attorneys and property practitioners.

Property Law Update | Issue 21 – 2020

THREE TRUSTEES, A MAJORITY VOTE AND A PROPERTY SALE AGREEMENT DISPUTE

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

SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AGREEMENT NO CHILD’S PLAY

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