De La Harpe v Body Corporate of Bella Toscana (10088/2013) [2014] ZAKZDHC 63 (28 October 2014)
The court found that the garden wall in question encloses the applicant's exclusive use area and, in terms of section 37(1)(b) of the Sectional Titles Act, the responsibility for its repair and maintenance falls on the applicant as the exclusive beneficiary. The applicant failed to establish breaches of statutory duties or substantial prejudice sufficient to justify the appointment of an administrator under section 46. The court dismissed the main application and granted the respondent's counter-application, ordering the applicant to remediate, demolish, and rebuild the wall at her own cost, in compliance with building regulations and to the satisfaction of the local authority. Costs...
- Citation
- [2014] ZAKZDHC 63
- Parties
- Applicant: Marguerite Anne Catherine De La Harpe; Respondent: Body Corporate of Bella Toscana
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 28 October 2014
- Case Number
- 10088/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Application and Counter Application
- Outcome
- Application for appointment of administrator dismissed with costs; counter-application granted ordering applicant to remediate, demolish, and rebuild the wall at her own cost.
- Judges
- M R Chetty
- Legal Topics
- Sectional Titles Act, Exclusive Use Area Liability, Appointment of Administrator, Special Levy, Structural Defects, Maintenance Obligations
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Marguerite Anne Catherine De La Harpe
Applicant
Body Corporate of Bella Toscana
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Application and Counter Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Is the applicant or the body corporate responsible for the repair and maintenance of the garden wall enclosing the applicant's exclusive use area?
- 2 Does the applicant meet the threshold for the appointment of an administrator under section 46 of the Sectional Titles Act?
- 3 Should the costs of demolition, repair, and rebuilding of the wall be borne by the applicant or the body corporate?
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the garden wall in question encloses the applicant's exclusive use area and, in terms of section 37(1)(b) of the Sectional Titles Act, the responsibility for its repair and maintenance falls on the applicant as the exclusive beneficiary. The applicant failed to establish breaches of statutory duties or substantial prejudice sufficient to justify the appointment of an administrator under section 46. The court dismissed the main application and granted the respondent's counter-application, ordering the applicant to remediate, demolish, and rebuild the wall at her own cost, in compliance with building regulations and to the satisfaction of the local authority. Costs...
Court Disposition
Application for appointment of administrator dismissed with costs; counter-application granted ordering applicant to remediate, demolish, and rebuild the wall at her own cost.
Orders
- The applicant's application for the appointment of an administrator in terms of section 46 of the Sectional Titles Act, No. 95 of 1986 is dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the urgent application on 16 September 2013.
- The applicant is directed and ordered to remediate and/or demolish the wall on her property, depicted on annexure 'A' to the applicant's founding affidavit, and to repair and/or rebuild same in compliance with the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act and to the satisfaction of the Building...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment