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 35 – 2015

SELLER CANNOT TRANSFER: BLAME THE MORTGAGEE?

Jessop v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and Another (42379/2012) [2015] ZAGPJHC 208
(16 September 2015)

Seeking transfer of a share in property in terms of a sale agreement, the purchaser in this matter launched an action against the mortgagee arguing that, since a bond was registered in the latter’s favour after the agreement of sale was entered into, it caused the purchaser damages. The court held that despite the fact that the mortgagee had knowledge of the sale agreement, it was the seller, as owner of the property, that gives the instruction to register a bond over property. As such, the fact that the seller refused transfer because he could not cover the obligation under the bond, was not a consequence that the mortgagee was responsible for.

read more
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

 

LAND SURVEY: INCORRECT UPDATE OF SERVITUDE

Great Force Investments 124 (Pty) Limited v Surveyor-General, Cape Town and Others (4348/2013) [2015] ZAWCHC 127
(25 August 2015)

This judgment has a unique set of facts and deals with an incorrect updating of a 1886 diagram in the office of the Surveyor General, leading to incorrect reflection of certain servitude rights that existed in respect of two neighbouring properties. The court noted that the actions by the office of the Surveyor General constituted administrative action and because section 33(1) of the Constitution entrenches the right to just administrative action, the Surveyor General’s decision was capable of review.

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