Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Body Corporate of the Manhattan v Blake (52472/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 583 (3 June 2025)
The High Court upheld exceptions to a respondent’s plea and counterclaim in a sectional title dispute, holding levies cannot be withheld and the counterclaim was res judicata.
Body Corporate of Bains Game Lodge v Bainsvlei Lodges (Pty) Ltd; In Re: Body Corporate of Bains Game Lodge v Bainsvlei Lodges (Pty) Ltd (6198/2017) [2020] ZAFSHC 83 (22 April 2020)
The court dismissed a declaratory-judgment application about whether a body corporate could absolve a member from levy contributions.
Extra Dimensions 121 (Pty) Limited v Body Corporate of Marine Sands and Another (AR121/2017) [2018] ZAKZPHC 34 (24 August 2018)
The court held that the body corporate's special resolution, which purported to modify the liability of sectional owners for levy contributions by amending the participation quota schedule, was invalid. The Sectional Titles Act requires that any modification to the liability for contributions must be effected through a management rule, adopted by unanimous resolution, not by a conduct rule via special resolution. The resolution in question did not comply with these statutory requirements, as it was passed as a conduct rule and lacked the necessary unanimous consent. The scheme cannot have two…
Source excerpt
Extra Dimensions 121 (Pty) Limited v Body Corporate of Marine Sands and Another (AR121/2017) [2018] ZAKZPHC 69 (24 August 2018)
The court held that a body corporate could not use a special resolution and conduct rules to alter levy liability; the resolution was declared invalid.
Extra Dimensions 121 (Pty) Ltd v Body Corporate of Marine (9015/2014) [2016] ZAKZDHC 1 (5 February 2016)
The court held that the phrase 'adversely affected' in section 32(4) of the Sectional Titles Act must be interpreted in context, considering the purpose of the Act and the need for fairness among unit owners. The applicant's interpretation, equating any increase in levy with adverse effect, was rejected as it would render the provision nugatory and recreate the impractical unanimity requirement of the previous Act. The court found that the special resolution was intended to correct an inequitable levy regime and that the applicant, though paying more, was not adversely affected in the legal s…
Source excerpt
Explore more
