Bianca Matos v Laguna Ridge Body Corporate

The applicant, Bianca Matos, occupied Unit 2 in the Laguna Ridge sectional title scheme, a unit owned by her parents. She alleged that longstanding stormwater and drainage failures on common property caused subsidence, damp, cracking, and structural damage to Unit 2 and surrounding common areas. According to her, Unit 2 and Unit 4 had been extended decades earlier by the original developer, and the relevant plans had been approved and reflected in the sectional plan. In 2010, when patio paving was lifted, a broken and misaligned underground stormwater elbow pipe was discovered and repaired by the trustees' plumber, but she contended that the repair was never properly effected and that water continued to flow under the unit. In 2015, a structural engineer warned that settlement would not continue provided there were no stormwater leaks or underground water ingress. Further complaints were made in 2019 and 2020 after worsening structural defects, including walls pulling away from the ceiling, dampness, cracked tiles, and damage to common areas. Reports from experts suggested subsidence and possible stormwater pipe failure. The respondent body corporate disputed liability, contending that the extension to Unit 2 was unauthorised, formed part of the section taken voetstoots by the owner, and suffered from poor workmanship for which the owner was responsible. The respondent also relied on plumbing inspections said to show no drainage problems. The municipality had issued notices concerning dangerous conditions, but these were addressed to the owners, not the body corporate.

• Whether the body corporate was obliged under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act to investigate and repair common property stormwater infrastructure potentially causing damage to Unit 2 and surrounding common areas.
• Whether the applicant was entitled to an order compelling the respondent to carry out repairs and maintenance under section 39(6) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the respondent could be compelled to reimburse or effect repairs to damage within the section itself under section 39(6)(b)(i) and (ii).
• Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction under the CSOS Act to determine delictual liability or damages for structural harm allegedly caused by defective common property infrastructure.
• How responsibility is divided between an owner's duty to maintain a section and a body corporate's duty to maintain common property under the STSMA.

The application was partially granted and partially refused. The applicant and respondent were ordered to meet within 7 days of delivery of the order to agree on the scope of the plumbing investigation to be conducted by a plumber appointed by the respondent, as contemplated in the respondent's email of 20 September 2021. The respondent was ordered to remedy any repairs recommended by the plumber after investigation, with the investigation and repairs to be concluded within 14 days from delivery of the investigation report. Relief under section 39(6)(b)(i) and (ii) was refused. Relief under section 39(6)(c)(i) was granted in line with the investigation-and-repair order. No order as to costs.

A body corporate is obliged under section 3(1)(l) of the STSMA to investigate and maintain common property where the evidence indicates that common property infrastructure may be defective and affecting owners or occupiers. However, under section 13(1)(c) of the STSMA, responsibility for repair and maintenance of the interior section remains with the owner. A CSOS adjudicator may grant regulatory relief compelling investigation and repair of common property under section 39, but lacks jurisdiction to determine delictual liability or award damages or reimbursement based on disputed fault for structural damage within a section.

The adjudicator observed that, to bring closure and avoid future gaps, the respondent should agree with the applicant on the terms of reference for the plumber's investigation. The adjudicator also stated that it was unnecessary to determine the historical dispute about how the extension had originally been constructed, because regardless of its origins, the section as it exists remains the owner's responsibility insofar as internal repairs are concerned.

The matter is significant in South African community schemes law because it illustrates the division of responsibilities between a body corporate and an owner under the STSMA: the body corporate must maintain common property, while the owner remains responsible for the section. It also reinforces an important jurisdictional limit of the CSOS process, namely that adjudicators cannot determine delictual damages claims for structural loss, fault, or compensation. The case further shows that practical remedial orders under section 39 of the CSOS Act may be used to compel investigation and repair of common property even where broader disputes about causation and damages remain unresolved.