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 Laborie v Mckonie [2023] ZAGPPHC 540; 58798/2021 (7 July 2023)
The High Court granted provisional sequestration after finding a valid debt, an act of insolvency, and authority for the body corporate’s managing agent to sue.
Conrad v Key West Body Corporate (55262/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 508 (28 June 2022)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as the delay in launching the application was inadequately explained and the alleged financial harm was not substantiated with sufficient detail. The application for intervention/joinder of Tyrone Sacks was uncontested and thus not fatal, but did not cure the lack of urgency. The applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify a stay of the adjudication order pending appeal. The appeal itself was not properly instituted, and the respondent would suffer prejudice if the order was stay…
Source excerpt
Body Corporate of the Sorronto Sectional Title Scheme, Parow v Koordom and Another (5439/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 99; 2022 (6) SA 499 (WCC) (26 May 2022)
The court found that the applicant was duly authorised to institute the urgent application, as the trustee resolutions—both the initial and the subsequent ratification—were valid under the Management Rules. The round robin procedure and virtual meetings were accepted as standard practice, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The second resolution served as ratification and confirmation of the first, and all trustees were aware and in agreement with the litigation. However, the court held that the dispute was minor and should have been referred to the Community Schemes Ombud Service,…
Source excerpt
Drakenberg Body Corporate and Others v Trafalgar Property Management and Others (14470/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 682 (29 April 2021)
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
Coral Island Body Corporate v Hoge (22991/2017) [2019] ZAWCHC 58; 2019 (5) SA 158 (WCC) (23 May 2019)
The High Court granted interdictory relief in a sectional title dispute but made no costs order, criticising resort to court rather than the Ombud Service.
Sunbird Estate Body Corporate v Homeprop Property Group (22529/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 49 (22 February 2019)
The High Court held that the applicant unnecessarily brought the application and ordered it to pay the costs after the underlying dispute had been settled.
Los Angeles Body Corporate v Noah and Another (2017/5804) [2018] ZAGPJHC 52 (26 March 2018)
The applicant failed to prove that Ms Noah and the second respondent acted in willful and mala fide non-compliance with the court order. The order was drafted in excessively broad terms, making substantive compliance virtually impossible, especially given the dysfunctional governance of the body corporate over the relevant period. Ms Noah was not in complete control of the financial affairs for the entire period, and her roles were limited and subject to interference by trustees and other administrators. The applicant's evidence did not substantiate its claims, and the respondent's version wa…
Source excerpt
Padachie v Body Corporate of Crystal Cove and Others (6592/2016) [2017] ZAKZDHC 24 (15 June 2017)
The court found that the applicant was permitted to inspect the documents but was not allowed to make copies or take notes using electronic devices under the management rules in force prior to October 2016. The second respondent's refusal to permit copying was based on a genuine belief in the limits of the rules and was not shown to be mala fide or grossly negligent. The applicant failed to refute the second respondent's version or to establish misconduct warranting a personal costs order. The legislative change in October 2016 rendered the substantive relief academic, and the first responden…
Source excerpt
Kondile and Others v The Body Corporate of Aminie (41101/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 845 (11 November 2015)
The High Court granted condonation for a late rescission application but dismissed rescission, finding no proven fraud or good cause under common law.
Body Corporate of the Falcons v Rademan and Others (16173/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 330 (5 December 2012)
High Court dispute over the removal and replacement of sectional title trustees; the court held the special meeting was valid and the later AGM made the issue academic.
Explore more
