Ben JA Venter v Bordeaux Body Corporate and Belmont Sectional Title Management

The applicant, Ben JA Venter, is the owner of unit 1 in the Bordeaux Sectional Title Scheme and therefore a member of the first respondent body corporate. The second respondent is the scheme's managing agent, Belmont Sectional Title Management. The dispute arose after the applicant replaced a garden tap at a cost of R1 175.00. He contended that the tap was situated on common property within an exclusive use area and that, at the annual general meeting held in March 2022, a decision had been taken that the body corporate could replace garden taps on a shared-cost basis of 50/50 between the owner and the body corporate. He argued that the minutes inaccurately recorded only that the issue would be investigated. The applicant also complained that the scheme's conduct rules were not registered and sought that a general meeting be called to discuss the rules. The respondents contended that the applicant had signed off the AGM minutes in his capacity as trustee, that the tap fell within an exclusive use area associated with the member's section, and that the replacement had been done in early 2021 without the body corporate's knowledge or permission. They further stated that draft conduct rules existed but had not yet been finalised and would be discussed by trustees before being tabled at the next AGM.

• Whether the CSOS adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 to order partial reimbursement of the applicant's expenditure for replacing a garden tap.
• Whether the amount claimed by the applicant constituted a 'contribution or any other amount' within the meaning of section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the application was without substance, misconceived, or ultra vires under section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether any order should be made concerning the scheme's conduct rules and the calling of a general meeting.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act as being without substance. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

A CSOS adjudicator may grant only relief expressly authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act. A claim by an owner for reimbursement of money spent replacing a garden tap in an exclusive use/common property context, undertaken without the body corporate's prior knowledge or permission, does not constitute a recoverable 'contribution' for purposes of section 39(1)(e). Such a claim accordingly falls outside the adjudicator's statutory powers and the application may be dismissed as without substance under section 53(1)(a).

The adjudicator observed that the scheme's conduct rules appeared inadequate because they did not address responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of common property in general, and that revised rules seemed more specific. However, these comments were not decisive because the draft rules had not yet been internally discussed and approved, making intervention premature.

The matter is significant for confirming the limited statutory jurisdiction of CSOS adjudicators in sectional title and community scheme disputes. It illustrates that CSOS adjudicators may grant only those remedies specifically authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act and cannot award reimbursement claims that fall outside the statutory meaning of 'contributions'. The order also reflects the approach that concerns about deficient or incomplete conduct rules may be acknowledged, but relief will not necessarily be granted where proper internal governance processes have not yet run their course.