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 Merriman Court and Others v Greeff (A212/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 47; 2024 (3) SA 509 (WCC) (13 February 2024)
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.
Body Corporate of San Sydney v Singh and Others (D10058/2018) [2023] ZAKZDHC 39 (23 June 2023)
The court found that the applicant's agreement with HF Property was not a mere cession of the right to extend the scheme, but also involved the sale of buildings constructed on common property. Such a transaction required a prior unanimous resolution of owners under section 5(1)(a) of the STSMA and section 17 of the STA, not merely written consent after the fact. The trustees acted outside their powers by concluding the agreement without first presenting options to owners, calling a meeting, and obtaining proper authorisation. The respondent had good cause in law to withhold consent, as the s…
Source excerpt
Harbour Terrace Body Corporate v Minister of Public Works and Others (2556/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 87; [2016] 3 All SA 766 (WCC); 2025 (1) SA 191 (WCC) (8 July 2016)
Section 48 of the Sectional Titles Act does not empower either the body corporate or the court to declare an individual section within a sectional title scheme as deemed destroyed; the provision applies only to buildings as a whole. Even if the section could be notionally destroyed, the applicant failed to comply with statutory requirements, including obtaining written consent from the State as the owner (following deregistration of the developer), and from all holders of registered sectional mortgage bonds and real rights. The purported resolution by the owners was insufficient, as the State…
Source excerpt
Du Rand NO v Faerie Glen Renaissance Scheme (302/08) [2009] ZASCA 122; [2010] 1 All SA 383 (SCA) (28 September 2009)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the retirement-housing legislation already applied to the scheme, so the rule amendments did not harm the appellants’ proprietary rights.
Explore more
