South Africa Case Law

Bila and Others v Monterey Body Corporate and Others (2021/5060)

Bila and Others v Monterey Body Corporate and Others (2021/5060) [2021] ZAGPJHC 882 (24 November 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/5060

Judge

A Friedman

The applicants failed to establish that Mr van den Bos was in contempt of the previous court order, as the evidence does not show intentional disregard. The AGM was convened in compliance with the order, and the members exercised their right under the Management Rules to appoint an executive managing agent. However, the process may not have met the special resolution requirements, but this issue was not properly pleaded or canvassed. The substantive complaints regarding governance, levies, and meetings fall within the jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service, not the High Court. Th…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act
• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Civil Contempt
• Special Resolution Requirements
• Body Corporate Governance

Drakenberg Body Corporate and Others v Trafalgar Property Management and Others (14470/2021)

Drakenberg Body Corporate and Others v Trafalgar Property Management and Others (14470/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 682 (29 April 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

14470/2021

Judge

MJ Mosopa

The court found that the management agreement between the first applicant and first respondent had lapsed by effluxion of time prior to the institution of the application. Although the body corporate failed to comply with the statutory requirement of 30 days' notice for a special resolution, this non-compliance was not fatal to the termination by effluxion of time. The first respondent's continued involvement was not justified, and its obligation to hand over books of account, financial statements, monies, and reserve funds remained. The petition to remove the trustees was declared invalid as…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Title Management
• Termination Of Management Agreement
• Special Resolution Requirements
• Fiduciary Duties Of Managing Agent
• Urgent Interdict
• Body Corporate Governance

Korkie and Others v Ismail and Others (4305/2017)

Korkie and Others v Ismail and Others (4305/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 37 (31 July 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

4305/2017

Judge

G G Goosen

The court found that the applicants failed to establish, on the papers, that the respondents acted unlawfully by making threats or damaging the fence. The respondents' denials were supported by affidavits from other residents, and the factual disputes could not be resolved in the applicants' favour in motion proceedings. The requirements for a final interdict were therefore not met. The first applicant was found to be duly authorised to act on behalf of the Body Corporate, but the essential factual basis for relief was lacking. The court also noted the fraught situation among residents and th…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Title Schemes Management
• Interdict
• Locus Standi
• Dispute Of Fact
• Body Corporate Governance

Page-Shipp v Manor Ridge Body Corporate and Others (46363/10)

Page-Shipp v Manor Ridge Body Corporate and Others (46363/10) [2011] ZAGPPHC 35 (28 March 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

46363/10

Judge

N M Mavundla

The court held that the applicant’s body corporate dispute should have been dealt with internally and ordered him to pay the costs of the application.

• Sectional Titles Act
• Fiduciary Duties Of Trustees
• Costs Award
• Body Corporate Governance
• Sectional-titles
• Body-corporate-governance

Cassim and Another v St Moritz Body Corporate and Others (16788/2004, 18425/2004, 2918/2005, 11914/2005)

Cassim and Another v St Moritz Body Corporate and Others (16788/2004, 18425/2004, 2918/2005, 11914/2005) [2010] ZAKZDHC 19 (11 June 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

16788/2004, 18425/2004, 2918/2005, 11914/2005

Judge

Van der Reyden

The court held that the plaintiffs lack locus standi in respect of all claims for which they were obliged but failed to follow the procedure prescribed by section 41 of the Sectional Titles Act. The statutory remedy under section 41 is comprehensive and must be used by aggrieved owners seeking to act on behalf of the body corporate. The plaintiffs' reliance on constitutional rights was not substantiated by the pleadings, and no constitutional challenge to section 41 was advanced. The plaintiffs, as owners and former trustees, cannot bring direct claims against the body corporate or its servic…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Titles Act
• Locus Standi
• Body Corporate Governance
• Fiduciary Duties
• Access To Information
• Derivative Actions