Anand Thilakchand v The Trustees of Casa Viola Body Corporate

The applicant, Anand Thilakchand, is an owner of a unit in Casa Viola Body Corporate in Bloubergrant, Cape Town. He brought a dispute-resolution application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the trustees of the body corporate. His complaints concerned alleged maladministration by the trustees and managing agent in relation to a painting project, the installation of water meters, and levy increases. He contended that the painting project proceeded without a special general meeting or proper budgeting, despite objections from owners and despite AGM minutes in June 2019 indicating the project would be addressed in 2020. He also objected to the trustees' approach to water-meter solutions, complained that his objections were ignored, challenged what he described as a 10% levy increase as excessive in light of inflation and existing levies, and sought removal of a meter on his geyser. The respondent body corporate answered that the 10-year maintenance plan had been approved at AGMs, that due process was followed in obtaining quotations for the painting work, that owners were informed, that water meters were approved unanimously at a meeting, and that the installation was required by law and justified by high municipal water charges. The matter had first resulted in an order on 28 July 2023, but because not all relief sought had been considered, the adjudicator issued an amended adjudication order after relying on the practice directive permitting correction of errors or omissions.

• Whether the relief sought by the applicant fell within the forms of relief an adjudicator is empowered to grant under section 39 of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the applicant's challenge to resolutions concerning the painting project, water meters and levy increases was out of time under section 41 of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the adjudicator could grant orders effectively declaring trustees and the managing agent guilty of maladministration or otherwise hold them personally accountable.
• Whether the applicant was wrongfully denied access to information or documents regarding the basis for water meters and levy increases under section 39(7)(a).
• Whether the applicant was entitled to an order requiring removal of the geyser meter.
• Whether the levy increase was unreasonable or incorrectly determined and had to be adjusted to align with inflation.
• Whether the applicant was entitled to costs or compensation for time spent and alleged excess contribution.

The amended adjudication order refused all relief sought by the applicant under sections 39(1)(c), 39(4)(c), 39(6)(b) and 39(7)(a) of the CSOS Act. No order as to costs was made.

A CSOS adjudicator may grant only relief that falls within the categories and forms of relief expressly provided in section 39 of the CSOS Act; relief seeking findings of maladministration, personal accountability, damages, or other remedies outside section 39 is incompetent and falls beyond the adjudicator's statutory powers. In addition, an application to declare a decision of an association or executive committee void must comply with section 41's 60-day period unless condonation is sought and granted. Further, there is no legal requirement that body corporate levy increases be aligned with inflation where the increase is authorised under the applicable management rules and scheme governance framework, including the up-to-10% increase permitted by prescribed management rule 21(3)(b).

The adjudicator observed that maladministration implies serious mismanagement of funds and possible dishonesty, suggesting that such allegations are more appropriately determined by a court of law. The adjudicator also commented that self-regulation is a cornerstone of bodies corporate and community schemes, and that interference with decisions voluntarily accepted by owners who choose to live in such schemes will not be undertaken lightly. The discussion that individual metering is a fair method for allocating water costs, rather than all owners subsidising overconsumption, also appears as supportive commentary beyond the core jurisdictional and timeliness findings.

The decision is significant for community schemes jurisprudence because it underscores the limited, statutory nature of CSOS adjudication. It confirms that adjudicators may grant only the remedies expressly listed in section 39 and cannot determine broad allegations of maladministration, fault, dishonesty, damages or accountability beyond the statute. It also highlights the importance of the 60-day time bar in section 41 for challenges to association or executive committee decisions, absent condonation. The ruling further affirms that levy increases within the limits of prescribed management rules and resolutions adopted in community-scheme governance structures will not lightly be disturbed, and that courts recognise the self-regulatory nature of bodies corporate and similar schemes.