Ahmed Sadeck Mansoor obo Al Zakhura v Mont Blanc Body Corporate

The applicant, Ahmed Sadeck Mansoor acting on behalf of Al Zakhura, was the owner of a flat in the Mont Blanc sectional title scheme in Durban. He alleged that in 2017 a leaking water pipe embedded in the bathroom wall caused damage in the unit, including damage to built-in cupboards and carpet. He stated that an insurance claim for resultant damage had been submitted and that the body corporate had, unbeknown to owners, failed to maintain insurance cover for a period of about three months, despite owners being billed monthly for insurance on their levy accounts. The applicant sought reimbursement of R17 500 for replacement of the cupboards and carpet and contended that the trustees had misrepresented matters and should be held personally liable. The respondent body corporate did not file a response despite being served with a notice under section 43 of the CSOS Act, and the matter proceeded directly to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 39(6)(b)(ii) of the CSOS Act to order reimbursement to the applicant for damage to items within his section.
• Whether the applicant's claim for reimbursement for cupboards and carpet was in substance a delictual damages claim falling outside the scope of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the applicant had substantiated, on a balance of probabilities, entitlement to the relief sought.
• Whether trustees or the body corporate could be held personally liable through CSOS proceedings for the alleged failure to maintain insurance cover.

The application was refused. No order as to costs.

A claim by a unit owner for reimbursement of loss caused by alleged failure of the body corporate to maintain insurance cover, where the claim is for replacement of damaged items in the owner's section and depends on establishing damages, fault or wrongful conduct, is in substance a delictual damages claim and falls outside the jurisdiction of a CSOS adjudicator under the CSOS Act. Disputes concerning trustees' fiduciary duties or personal liability likewise do not fall within CSOS jurisdiction where they are governed by the STSMA rather than constituting a community-scheme dispute remediable under section 39 of the CSOS Act.

The adjudicator observed that the body corporate is statutorily obliged under section 3(1) of the STSMA to insure the building and keep it insured, and suggested that a leaking pipe forming part of the building would ordinarily be covered as part of the insured building structure. The adjudicator also remarked that owners are entitled to obtain additional insurance for risks not covered by the body corporate's policy and remain responsible for repair and maintenance of their own sections. No fuller obiter reasoning was developed beyond these observations.

The matter is significant for confirming the limited jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service in sectional title disputes. It illustrates that CSOS adjudicators may resolve governance, management, and behavioural disputes within community schemes, but are not empowered to determine ordinary delictual damages claims or impose personal liability on trustees for alleged breaches of duty where such issues fall under the STSMA or are better suited to judicial determination by a court. The decision aligns with South African authority restricting CSOS's role to the remedies expressly contemplated in section 39 of the CSOS Act.