Cassim v Voyager Property Management (Pty) Ltd and Others

The appellants, two sisters, owned sectional title units in the St Moritz building in Durban. Concerned about alleged mismanagement of the body corporate and its managing agents, they launched multiple High Court applications and actions seeking access to financial records, declarations of invalidity of a loan agreement entered into on behalf of the body corporate, and related relief. They were elected trustees on 29 January 2005 but were suspended, along with all trustees, by court order on 29 August 2005. In the consolidated trial proceedings, certain defendants raised a special plea that the appellants lacked locus standi because they failed to comply with section 41 of the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986, which prescribes the procedure for an owner to institute proceedings on behalf of a body corporate. The High Court upheld the special plea in respect of claims C, D and E, leading to this appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, subject to limited exceptions relating to record supplementation and reimbursement of certain copying costs.

This case authoritatively confirms that sectional title owners must strictly comply with section 41 of the Sectional Titles Act when seeking to litigate on behalf of a body corporate. It reinforces the principle that individual owners or trustees cannot usurp the body corporate’s litigation function and clarifies the role of the curator ad litem as a safeguard against unmeritorious or factional litigation. The judgment aligns sectional title law with company-law principles such as Foss v Harbottle.