Kopano Grace v Cynthia Sathekga

The applicant, Kopano Grace, owns Unit 2304 at Benacre Lane, Modderfontein, Johannesburg. The respondent, Cynthia Sathekga, owns Unit 2306 in the same scheme. Since 2022, water leaks originating from the respondent’s unit caused damage to the applicant’s unit, including the ceiling, light fixtures and walls, particularly in the en-suite and guest bathrooms. A prior complaint (CSOS250/GP/22) had been resolved by January 2023 after earlier leaks were repaired. However, after new tenants moved into Unit 2306 in April 2023, leaks recurred. The respondent was notified via WhatsApp on 15 April 2023, and the matter was escalated to estate management and the body corporate. The body corporate’s insurer, Sanlam, processed a claim in May 2023 covering repairs to both units, and DMS Plumbing inspected the applicant’s unit in July 2023. Despite multiple attempts by the applicant to coordinate repairs with the respondent and the tenants, no repairs to the resulting damage in the applicant’s unit were carried out. The leaks themselves were eventually resolved, but the damage to the applicant’s bathrooms remained unrepaired. The respondent provided no substantive response in the adjudication proceedings.

• Whether the respondent, as owner of the upper unit, was responsible for repairing damage caused to the applicant’s unit by water leaks emanating from her section.
• Whether the adjudicator should grant relief under section 39(6)(b)(i) of the CSOS Act requiring specified repairs to be carried out.
• Whether, on the evidence presented and in the absence of a response from the respondent, the applicant had proved her case on a balance of probabilities.
• How the maintenance obligations imposed on sectional title owners under section 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(c) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and PMR 31 applied to the dispute.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to fix the damage caused by the water leaks to the applicant’s en-suite and guest bathroom by 1 September 2024. There was no order as to costs.

An owner in a sectional title scheme bears a legal duty under section 13(1)(b) and section 13(1)(c) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act to maintain and repair his or her section. Where water leaks from that owner’s section cause damage to another owner’s unit, and the evidence on a balance of probabilities establishes that source and resulting damage, the CSOS may, under section 39(6)(b)(i) of the CSOS Act, order that owner to carry out or procure the specified repairs. In the absence of a rebutting version from the respondent, supported evidence from the applicant may be accepted.

The adjudicator made general remarks about evidentiary principles, namely that only relevant evidence should be considered and that disputes must be determined on a balance of probabilities through credibility and probability assessments. The adjudicator also made broader observations on the purpose of the CSOS Act, namely to provide residents of community schemes with a statutory dispute-resolution service as an alternative to private arbitration or the courts. No substantial obiter beyond these general procedural observations appears in the order.

The decision illustrates the CSOS’s role as a statutory forum for resolving maintenance and repair disputes in sectional title and other community schemes. It reinforces that a unit owner who fails to maintain her section, causing damage to another owner’s section, can be compelled through a CSOS adjudication order to carry out specified repairs. The matter also shows that where a respondent fails to participate, the adjudicator may accept uncontested evidence that is sufficiently supported by documents and probabilities.