Maryna holds the BA, LLB, LLM degrees and is an Executive Consultant 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 25 – 2024

CYBERCRIME: DEBTOR TO SEEK OUT HIS CREDITOR

Gripper & Company (Pty) Ltd v Ganedhi Trading Enterprises CC (4725/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 352 (6 November 2024)

Cybercrime is rampant. Schemes that divert money legitimately owed to one person to unauthorised bank accounts – without the knowledge of either party – are common. So too is the litigation that follows the innocent parties’ efforts to determine who should bear the risk of the loss. In this matter, the court confirmed that principles extracted from applicable case law have now crystallised into a recognition in our law that it is the debtor’s obligation to ‘seek out his creditor’. Until payment is duly effected, the debtor carries the risk that the payment may be misappropriated or mislaid, unless the facts support another outcome.

The judgment can be viewed here
Summary of the Judgment

ARE YOUR INITIALS ALSO YOUR SIGNATURE?

Firstrand Bank Limited v Initiative for Specialized Resource Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (046733/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 987 (26 September 2024)

Billion Property Developments v Nevzomark (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/104985) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1045 (13 October 2024)

In two judgments handed down by the Pretoria High Court within two weeks of each other, the same question had to be answered, namely whether initialing a suretyship satisfies the legal requirement that a suretyship must be signed to be valid. Both courts came to the same conclusion, answering in the affirmative, though for different reasons. The outcome will not be the same in all instances, however, and the courts’ reasoning below highlights factors that our courts must consider in these enquiries. It remains necessary to apply caution, as outcomes will vary depending on the circumstances.

The first listed judgment can be viewed here
The second listed 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