Tumelo Paul Lehlabi v Soldonne Village Body Corporate and Trustees of Soldonne Village Body Corporate

The applicant, Tumelo Paul Lehlabi, is the owner of unit 55 in the Soldonne Village sectional title scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. He lodged an application with the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) seeking relief under section 39(7)(b) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 for the reinstatement of electricity to his unit after the respondent body corporate had disconnected it. The matter was directly referred to adjudication following the issue of a certificate of non-resolution on 28 March 2024 due to urgency. During investigation, the adjudicator established that the same parties had already been involved in an earlier CSOS matter, CSOS 15120/GP/23, in which an adjudication order had been granted on 28 March 2024 concerning the same electricity disconnection dispute, and in which relief restoring the electricity supply had already been granted with immediate effect.

• Whether the applicant's CSOS application for reinstatement of electricity should be entertained when an earlier adjudication order between the same parties had already granted the same relief.
• Whether the application was duplicative and therefore res judicata or otherwise without substance under section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether a further adjudication order was necessary, or whether the applicant's remedy lay instead in enforcement of the earlier order.
• Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant under section 53(2) of the CSOS Act.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act as being without substance. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

A CSOS application that duplicates an earlier adjudicated dispute between the same parties, on the same facts and for the same relief, is without substance and may be dismissed under section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act. Once relief has already been granted in a prior adjudication order, the matter should not be reopened through a fresh application; the proper course is enforcement of the existing order. CSOS adjudicators may act only within the powers conferred by the CSOS Act.

The adjudicator observed that the matter could be regarded as res judicata and noted, with reference to Evergreen Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v Messerschmidt and The Kingshaven Homeowners Association v Botha, that CSOS is a statutory body and adjudicators' powers are confined to section 39 of the CSOS Act. The adjudicator also remarked that although the application was misconceived, it was not frivolous or vexatious, making a costs order inappropriate in the circumstances.

The matter is significant within community schemes jurisprudence because it confirms that CSOS adjudicators will not entertain duplicate proceedings seeking relief already granted in an earlier adjudication between the same parties on the same issue. It underscores the application of finality principles akin to res judicata in CSOS dispute resolution and clarifies that where an earlier CSOS order exists, the appropriate remedy is enforcement rather than relitigation. The order also reiterates that CSOS adjudicators are creatures of statute whose remedial powers are limited to those conferred by the CSOS Act.