Michael Johannes Rajtenbach v Manuel Mendes and Others

The applicant, Michael Johannes Rajtenbach, is an owner in the King's Village & Terraces sectional title scheme. The first respondent, Manuel Mendes, through the third respondent Prime Investment 1153 CC, owned approximately 74.4% to 76.64% of the scheme after acquiring units at auction. Following tensions between the majority owner and the existing trustees/managing agent (Gateway Property Management), disputes arose about maintenance, governance, and the authority of legal representatives and the managing agent. After all trustees resigned on or about 4 May 2023, the fourth respondent, Reynard Agencies, assisted in arranging a special general meeting held on 31 May 2023, at which new trustees were appointed. The applicant challenged the validity of that meeting, sought confirmation of Adv Welgemoed's authority to act for certain respondents and allegedly for the body corporate, and sought to restrict expenditure from the maintenance reserve fund unless approved in a particular manner. The matter proceeded under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 after conciliation failed.

• Whether the applicant was entitled under section 39(7)(a) of the CSOS Act to an order compelling disclosure or confirmation of Adv Welgemoed's authority where no prior request for the information had been made and refused.
• Whether the special general meeting of 31 May 2023 was invalid because it was convened when the scheme had no trustees and the fourth respondent lacked a formal mandate.
• Whether, under Prescribed Management Rule 17(4), an owner holding at least 25% of the participation quota may call or procure the calling of a meeting where all trustees have resigned and no trustees exist to call one.
• Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 39 of the CSOS Act to grant an interdict preventing expenditure from the maintenance reserve fund except in the manner sought by the applicant.

The application was refused in respect of prayers 1, 2 and 3. No order as to costs was made.

For purposes of Prescribed Management Rule 17(4), trustees' 'failure' to call a special general meeting includes circumstances where all trustees have resigned and no trustees exist to convene a meeting. In such a case, an owner holding at least 25% of the participation quotas may call or procure the calling of a meeting to appoint trustees and restore scheme governance. In addition, relief under section 39(7)(a) of the CSOS Act requires proof that the requested information was first sought and wrongfully denied, and CSOS adjudicators have no power to grant remedies outside the ambit of section 39.

The adjudicator observed that the legislature plainly intended sectional title schemes always to have trustees and to remain capable of holding annual or special general meetings. The adjudicator further remarked that without trustees a scheme could collapse, and that invalidating the 31 May 2023 meeting would produce an insensible result. These comments supported the interpretive conclusion but went beyond the narrow facts of the relief sought. The adjudicator also noted that the applicant could pursue the reserve-fund interdict in a court of law, which was a procedural observation rather than part of the binding determination.

The decision is significant for community schemes and sectional title governance because it addresses a practical governance vacuum: where all trustees resign, an owner holding at least 25% of participation quotas may validly initiate the calling of a special general meeting to restore governance structures. It also confirms that CSOS relief under section 39 is limited and cannot be expanded to include general interdictory relief outside the Act's express remedial framework. Further, it underscores that document-access relief under section 39(7) depends on an actual prior request and wrongful refusal.