Abrahm Bore v The Trustees of Loeries Park Body Corporate

The applicant, Abrahm Bore, is the owner of units 3 and 5 in Loeries Park Body Corporate in Brakpan, Gauteng. He alleged that the body corporate, its managing agent, and plumbing contractors had interfered with water supply pipes servicing his two units, resulting in poor or no water supply for several years and low occupancy of the units. He sought relief under section 39(6)(b) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, asking for restoration of water supply, an assessment of the complex's water pipe system by a qualified company, and independent income and expenditure reports together with reimbursement for financial losses caused by the lack of water. The respondent denied deliberate interference and contended that the inadequate supply was due to low municipal water pressure. It also argued that Bore had not exhausted internal remedies, had failed to provide tenant details for inspection access, had installed a JoJo tank without permission, and was in arrears with levies. It was common cause that the applicant's units were experiencing inadequate water supply.

• Whether the body corporate was responsible under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act to address and repair inadequate water supply affecting the applicant's units where the problem related to common property infrastructure or shared services.
• Whether the applicant's alleged failure to exhaust internal remedies prevented CSOS from granting relief.
• Whether CSOS had jurisdiction to order compensation, financial-loss reimbursement, and independent income/expenditure reports in respect of the applicant's alleged losses.

The application succeeded in part. The respondent was ordered, within 21 days, to engage the services of a qualified plumber and the municipality and ensure that the water supply to the applicant's unit is properly and adequately restored. The applicant's claim for independent income and expenditure reports and reimbursement of financial losses was refused. No order as to costs was made.

Where inadequate water supply to a sectional title unit is attributable to infrastructure or services forming part of the common property or serving more than one section, the body corporate is statutorily obliged under section 3 of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act to take steps, at its expense, to maintain, repair, and restore that service. CSOS may grant coercive relief directing such repairs or maintenance under section 39 of the CSOS Act, but claims for financial loss or damages are beyond the adjudicator's statutory powers and must be pursued in a court of competent jurisdiction.

The adjudicator observed that both parties agreed on the importance of access to water and remarked that the respondent should have resolved the issue speedily once aware of it. The order also suggested that the respondent ought to approach the municipality and/or engage qualified plumbers to resolve the problem. To the extent that the adjudicator referred generally to the importance of water access and the desirability of prompt action, those comments were ancillary to the core holding.

The decision is significant in community schemes and sectional titles law because it reaffirms that a body corporate has a statutory obligation under the STSMA to maintain and repair common property infrastructure, including shared water supply systems, and cannot avoid that responsibility by relying on internal-process objections where an essential service problem is undisputed. It also illustrates the jurisdictional limits of CSOS adjudicators: they may grant maintenance and repair orders but not damages-type compensation falling outside the Act's remedial powers.