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 26 – 2015

Selling subdivided land: rates clearance required on mother erf?

EM And EM Engineering (Pty) Limited v KwaDukuza Municipality and Others (9349/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 55 (26 June 2015)

After a general plan was registered in respect of a developer’s land on which it intended establishing a new residential township, it applied for a municipal clearance to effect transfer of two subdivided properties that were subsequently sold. The municipality argued that as there has been no change in ownership when the general plan was registered, a clearance certificate can only be issued if the rates and taxes for the whole mother erf have been paid. The developer successfully approached the court for an order that a clearance certificate in respect of only the two subdivided erven was required.

read more
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

Sublessee clutching at straws

Linksfield Nursery CC and Another v Wickstrom and Others (34695/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 136
(8 July 2015)

Wisdom after the fact, in this instance again, highlights how beneficial it would be for persons negotiating even simple business partnerships, to reduce their agreement to writing. The dispute here arose between a lessee and sublessee who jointly ran a nursery and coffee shop business, and for which purpose the sub-lessee erected buildings on the premises. When the oral agreement came to an end, the parties disputed the terms thereof and the sub-lessee sought to demolish the buildings. The lessee successfully interdicted him as, amongst other things, the buildings accrued to the landlord as property owner.

read more
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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