Janet Matopa Makhosazana Shabe v Thabo Mothlampe

The applicant, Janet Matopa Makhosazana Shabe, is the registered owner of unit 001 in Rockey Rivers Body Corporate, Johannesburg. The respondent, Thabo Mothlampe, is the registered owner of unit 5 in the same scheme. The applicant complained that from 8 June 2023 water leaked through the slab into her unit, damaging paint on the wall and potentially her cupboards. She reported the matter to the managing agent. A plumber later inspected and reportedly identified the source as the washing machine in the respondent’s unit. The applicant alleged that although the leak appeared at one stage to have been attended to, the damage to her unit was not repaired. She therefore sought an order under s 39(6)(b) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 directing the respondent to restore the paint in the affected area of her unit and repair the cupboards if damage was found. The respondent’s only substantive answer was that he did not understand why he should pay for damage that allegedly occurred before he owned the property.

• Whether the relief sought by the applicant—requiring the respondent to restore paint damage and repair cupboards in the applicant’s unit—was competent relief under s 39(6)(b) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether a CSOS adjudicator has jurisdiction to grant what is effectively compensation or delictual damages for damage already suffered inside another owner’s section.
• Whether, where a leak originates from the respondent’s section due to failure to maintain it, the applicant must repair her own section first and then seek recovery of costs through the mechanisms permitted by the statute.

The relief sought by the applicant against the respondent was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

A CSOS adjudicator may not grant relief under s 39 of the CSOS Act where the order sought, though framed as a repair order, is in substance a claim for delictual damages or compensation for damage already suffered in another owner’s section. Damage inside an owner’s section must ordinarily be repaired by that owner in terms of the STSMA duty to maintain the section, with any recovery of costs to be pursued through legally competent channels rather than by a direct CSOS damages-style order.

The adjudicator observed that the respondent’s explanation that the damage predated his ownership was unacceptable because it was unsupported and the leak was ongoing. The adjudicator also commented that the respondent’s unit appeared to be the source of the leak due to a failure to maintain and repair his property. These remarks supported the factual context but did not alter the ultimate dismissal based on lack of competent relief under the CSOS Act.

The matter illustrates the limits of CSOS adjudicative jurisdiction in sectional title disputes. Even where a neighbouring owner’s section is accepted as the source of a leak, CSOS will not necessarily grant relief that amounts in substance to delictual damages for consequential loss suffered inside another owner’s unit. The decision reflects the influence of High Court authority, especially Prag, in distinguishing between repair/maintenance orders within CSOS’s competence and damages-type claims that must be pursued in court or through proper cost-recovery mechanisms.