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 43 – 2015

SELLING WHEN YOU ARE NOT THE OWNER

Köster v Norval (20609/14) [2015] ZASCA 185 (30 November 2015)

An interesting set of facts led to the court confirming that, in our law, it is not an essential feature that a seller must be owner of the thing sold. The seller is however required to deliver undisturbed possession of the thing sold and to warrant against eviction. Here this was in the context of a shareholder selling all the shares in a company owning a game farm, implements and game. The game was however sold in a separate agreement by the shareholder, not the company. The purchaser refused to pay the purchase price for the game, arguing that the seller was not the owner and could therefore not dispose of the game.

read more
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

 

REDUCED RATES FOR HOA BECAUSE IT MAINTAINS ITS OWN INFRASTRUCTURE?

Blair Atholl Homeowners Association v The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (20634/2014) [2015] ZASCA 195 (1 December 2015)

This matter relates to the homeowners’ association and developer in an upmarket estate disputing why they were required to pay equivalent rates to property owners outside the estate when they maintain their own services in the estate. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that neither the Constitution, which gives municipalities the power to levy rates on property, nor the Rates Act links municipal property services with rates. It was thus not inequitable for the property owners to be charged equivalent rates to differently situated ratepayers.

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