South Africa Case Law

Ashwood Centre Body Corporate v Haldenby Estates (Pty) Ltd (18382/2021)

Ashwood Centre Body Corporate v Haldenby Estates (Pty) Ltd (18382/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 116 (18 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18382/2021

Judge

Kholong

The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act and Regulation 10(1). The resolutions relied upon by the plaintiff were signed by only one trustee and not by two trustees or one trustee and the managing agent, as required. The evidence showed that no trustee meeting was called to ratify the contributions, and the documents presented were recordals of member resolutions at AGMs, not valid trustee resolutions. The court held that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements rendered the re…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Levy Recovery
• Trustee Resolutions
• Regulation 10 Compliance

Zybutz v Body Corporate of Helianthus and Others (17944/23)

Zybutz v Body Corporate of Helianthus and Others (17944/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 233 (2 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17944/23

Judge

Sidaki

The High Court held that a CSOS Adjudicator wrongly declined jurisdiction over a dispute about body corporate refusal of special resolutions for building plans.

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Jurisdiction Of Adjudicator
• Reasonableness Of Body Corporate Decisions
• Community-schemes-ombud-service
• Sectional-title-schemes

L.A and Another v Body Corporate of London Place and Others (11463/2023)

L.A and Another v Body Corporate of London Place and Others (11463/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 92; 2025 (1) SA 147 (WCC) (27 March 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11463/2023

Judge

J Cloete

The court held that ordinary members of a body corporate are not members of its governing body for purposes of section 13(1)(e) of the Prescription Act. Only trustees constitute the governing body, as they are entrusted with the powers and functions of the body corporate under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act. Since neither applicant was ever a trustee, the statutory impediment delaying prescription does not apply. The body corporate's claim for historic arrear levies against the applicants has therefore prescribed, and the body corporate is precluded from relying on the prescribed…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Levy Clearance Certificate
• Subrogation
• Arrear Levies
• Condonation

Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others v Greeff (A212/2022)

Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others v Greeff (A212/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 47; 2024 (3) SA 509 (WCC) (13 February 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A212/2022

Judges

R. Allie, G. Salie, N. Mangcu-Lockwood

The High Court held that the respondent failed to prove the resolutions required to extend a sectional title unit onto common property and dismissed the application.

• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Unanimous Resolution
• Special Resolution
• Exclusive Use Rights
• Locus Standi

Selorne Park Body Corporate SS184/2001 v Mc Gregor (D12787/2018)

Selorne Park Body Corporate SS184/2001 v Mc Gregor (D12787/2018) [2023] ZAKZDHC 75 (16 October 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D12787/2018

Judge

Harrison AJ

High Court held a sectional title owner liable for levies on developed and undeveloped units, upheld 2% monthly interest, and granted judgment with costs.

• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Levy Liability
• Management Rules Amendment
• Interest On Arrears
• Allocation Of Expenses
• Sectional-title-schemes-management-act

Henque 1838 CC v Maxprop Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (759/2022)

Henque 1838 CC v Maxprop Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (759/2022) [2023] ZASCA 131 (12 October 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

759/2022

Judges

Ponnan, Meyer, Goosen, Molefe, Mali

The claims asserted by the appellant for repayment of funds and correction of financial statements are claims belonging to the body corporate under section 2(7) of the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act. The appellant, as a sectional title owner, was required to follow the statutory procedure set out in section 9, which includes serving written notice on the body corporate and, if necessary, applying for the appointment of a curator ad litem. The appellant did not comply with these requirements and did not establish a direct and substantial interest in the relief claimed. The loss alleged…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Locus Standi
• Curator Ad Litem
• Body Corporate Powers
• Levy Calculation

Body Corporate Ruby Court v Boyce (55013/2020)

Body Corporate Ruby Court v Boyce (55013/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1136 (7 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55013/2020

Judge

Yende

The High Court declared a sectional title unit specially executable for arrear levies, set a reserve price of R500,000, and ordered attorney-client costs.

• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Special Executability
• Service Of Summons
• Arrear Levies
• Rule 46 Uniform Rules
• Reserve Price Setting

Gonen v Trustees for the time being of The Melville Body Corporate and Others (A3025/2022)

Gonen v Trustees for the time being of The Melville Body Corporate and Others (A3025/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 363 (26 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3025/2022

Judges

Crutchfield, Dlamini

The court found that the security protocol adopted at The Melville was, in substance, a conduct rule as defined by section 10 of the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act. The protocol regulated the conduct of occupiers regarding deliveries and imposed conditions that departed significantly from existing conduct rules. The trustees and body corporate failed to follow the statutory procedure for amending conduct rules, as the protocol was not approved by special resolution nor submitted to the Chief Ombud for certification. The respondents' reliance on rule 9(e) did not cure the procedural de…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Conduct Rules Amendment
• Scheme Governance
• Security Protocols
• Adjudicator Jurisdiction

Rampul v Trustees of Mangrove Beach Centre : Body Corporate and Others (9823/2022P)

Rampul v Trustees of Mangrove Beach Centre : Body Corporate and Others (9823/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 25 (3 March 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

9823/2022P

Judge

Mossop

The High Court refused leave to appeal against dismissal of a sectional title dispute, finding no reasonable prospect of success or compelling reason.

• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Special Rules Validity
• Leave To Appeal Threshold
• Mixed Use Scheme Voting Rights
• Leave-to-appeal-threshold

Port O'Call Body Corporate v Verwordpark Liquers (Pty) Ltd (5187/2021)

Port O'Call Body Corporate v Verwordpark Liquers (Pty) Ltd (5187/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1052 (25 October 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

5187/2021

Judge

Carrim AJ

The respondent erected permanent structures, including a Louvre roof and tiled veranda, without the required consent of the trustees, and unlawfully encroached on common property, including over critical water and sewage lines. The trustees' refusal of consent was properly communicated and justified. The respondent ignored requests to remove the unlawful alterations and continued with further improvements. The challenges to the authority of the applicant's attorneys, the locus standi of the deponent, and the validity of the trustees' resolution were without merit and dismissed. Internal remed…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Encroachment On Common Property
• Fiduciary Duty Of Trustees
• Mandatory Interdict
• Internal Remedies
• Arbitration Clause