South Africa Case Law

Body Corporate of San Sydney v Shivani Singh and Others (779/2023)

Body Corporate of San Sydney v Shivani Singh and Others (779/2023) [2024] ZASCA 169 (9 December 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

779/2023

Judges

Dambuza, Smith, Molopa-Sethosa, Koen, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right of extension under s 25(6) of the Sectional Titles Act, once the developer's right has lapsed, vests in the body corporate and may be exercised, alienated, or ceded subject to written consent of all owners and mortgagees. The sale and cession of the right of extension does not constitute an alienation of common property requiring a unanimous resolution under s 5(1)(a) of the STSMA, but rather a cession of a limited real right. The respondent's withholding of consent was not without good cause in law, as she had not been provided with sufficient…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Titles Act
• Right Of Extension
• Alienation Of Real Rights
• Consent Of Owners
• Participation Quotas
• Good Cause In Law

Skillfull 54 (EDMS) Beperk v Human N.O. (5107/2013)

Skillfull 54 (EDMS) Beperk v Human N.O. (5107/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 14 (20 February 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5107/2013

Judge

C.H.G. van der Merwe, R

The court dismissed an application to stop a sixth sectional-title block, finding no proven prejudice from the deviation and no basis for an interdict.

• Sectional Titles Act
• Right Of Extension
• Compliance With Registered Plan
• Injunctive Relief
• Sectional-titles-act
• Right-of-extension

Croxford Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v The Body Corporate of the Inyoni Rocks Cabanas Scheme no ss1/1978 (174/10)

Croxford Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v The Body Corporate of the Inyoni Rocks Cabanas Scheme no ss1/1978 (174/10) [2011] ZASCA 27 (18 March 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

174/10

Judges

Brand, Maya, Cachalia, Shongwe, Petse

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the developer's right of extension under the Sectional Titles Act 66 of 1971 was not transferable once the developer disposed of its interest in the common property. The 1993 Amendment to the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 did not dispense with the requirement of ownership for the exercise or transfer of the right of extension acquired under the 1971 Act. The language of the amendment preserved the original requirement that the right of extension must be exercised as if the 1971 Act had not been repealed, meaning the developer must retain ownership of a…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Titles Act
• Right Of Extension
• Transfer Of Real Rights
• Declaratory Relief