Lund and Another v Community Schemes Ombud Service and Others (006069/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 632; [2024] 4 All SA 608 (GJ) (10 July 2024)

Lund and Another v Community Schemes Ombud Service and Others (006069/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 632; [2024] 4 All SA 608 (GJ) (10 July 2024)

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in instituting the review application, including attempts at mediation, personal difficulties, and lack of access to documents. The prejudice claimed by the Body Corporate was largely self-created due to its own delay in seeking enforcement. The CSOS adjudicator's procedure was found to be procedurally unfair, as no hearing was held, evidence was not called for, and submissions were not confirmed under oath. Applying the principles from Silverlakes, the court held that the award must be reviewed and set aside. The dispute was referred back to CSOS for rehearing. Costs were awarded against the Body...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 632
Parties
Applicant: Sue Ann Lund; Applicant: Mark John Baard; Respondent: Community Schemes Ombud Service; Respondent: Andre Andreas; Respondent: Devon Place Body Corporate
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 July 2024
Case Number
006069/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / High Court Judgment on Review
Outcome
Application granted. Time limits extended and condonation granted. CSOS adjudicator's award reviewed and set aside. Dispute referred back to CSOS for rehearing. Costs awarded against the Body Corporate.
Judges
B C Wanless
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Community Schemes Ombud Service Act, Procedural Fairness, Condonation for Late Filing, Costs Award, Sectional Titles
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Community Schemes Ombud Service Act Procedural Fairness Condonation for Late Filing Costs Award +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sue Ann Lund

Applicant

Mark John Baard

Applicant

Community Schemes Ombud Service

Respondent

Andre Andreas

Respondent

Devon Place Body Corporate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / High Court Judgment on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should extend the time limits under PAJA and grant condonation for late institution of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the CSOS adjudicator's award was reviewable and should be set aside for procedural unfairness.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute should be referred back to CSOS for rehearing and reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in instituting the review application, including attempts at mediation, personal difficulties, and lack of access to documents. The prejudice claimed by the Body Corporate was largely self-created due to its own delay in seeking enforcement. The CSOS adjudicator's procedure was found to be procedurally unfair, as no hearing was held, evidence was not called for, and submissions were not confirmed under oath. Applying the principles from Silverlakes, the court held that the award must be reviewed and set aside. The dispute was referred back to CSOS for rehearing. Costs were awarded against the Body...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Time limits extended and condonation granted. CSOS adjudicator's award reviewed and set aside. Dispute referred back to CSOS for rehearing. Costs awarded against the Body Corporate.

Orders

  • The time period of 180 days under section 7 of PAJA for institution of this application is extended and the delay is condoned under subsection 9(1)(b) of PAJA.
  • The CSOS adjudicator's award dated 31 May 2021 under reference CSOS02088/GP/20 is reviewed and set aside.