Candice Knusden v Trustees of Daphdean Court Body Corporate

The applicant, Candice Knusden, is the owner of Unit 10 in Daphdean Court Body Corporate in Rynfield, Benoni. She brought an application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service under s 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. She alleged that the body corporate and its managing agent had failed to maintain the complex and that no annual general meetings had been held since 2019. A scheduled AGM in October 2022, at which termination of the managing agent’s mandate was to be considered, did not take place. She further complained about special levies imposed for municipal services, arrear levies owed by some owners, and alleged failures by the managing agent to recover those arrears. The applicant sought orders compelling maintenance and repairs to common property, access to documents and correspondence with the Municipality of Ekurhuleni relating to the body corporate’s debt, financial relief from a special levy because she could not afford it, and termination of the managing agent’s contract with appointment of an executive managing agent. The respondent filed no submissions despite notice.

• Whether the body corporate had failed in its statutory duty to repair and maintain common property and could be ordered to do so under s 39(6)(a) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the applicant had been wrongfully denied access to records and correspondence relating to the body corporate’s municipal debt and was entitled to disclosure under s 39(7) of the CSOS Act and the prescribed management rules.
• Whether the applicant was entitled to financial relief from payment of a special levy merely because she could not afford it.
• Whether the adjudicator could order termination of the managing agent’s contract and appointment of an executive managing agent in the absence of a body corporate resolution and compliance with the prescribed management rules.

The application succeeded in part. The respondent was ordered, within 30 days, to repair and maintain the common property identified as the intercom, staircase sign, gutter poles, gutter pipes and water sluices in an acceptable manner. The respondent was further ordered, within 10 days, to provide the applicant with the documents and all correspondence between the respondent and the Municipality of Ekurhuleni detailing the debt owed by the body corporate. The applicant’s requests for financial relief from the special levy and for termination of the managing agent’s contract with appointment of an executive managing agent were refused. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate bears the statutory responsibility under s 3 of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act to maintain and repair common property and may be ordered by CSOS under s 39(6)(a) of the CSOS Act to do so where it fails in that duty. Members of a body corporate are entitled under the prescribed management rules, read with s 39(7) of the CSOS Act, to access records and documents of the scheme, including records relating to municipal debt. Liability for levies, including special levies validly raised, is an incident of ownership and cannot be avoided merely because an owner cannot afford payment. Termination of a managing agent’s contract and appointment of an executive managing agent must occur through the prescribed body corporate procedures and resolutions; an adjudicator cannot directly effect those steps absent the requisite process and powers.

The adjudicator made broader observations that access to information is a constitutionally protected right aimed at promoting transparency and accountability, with reference to Brummer v Minister for Social Development and Others. The adjudicator also remarked generally that wear and tear occurs in any building and maintenance is therefore inevitably required. In addition, the adjudicator noted that applicants before CSOS bear the onus of setting out their relief with reasonable certainty, citing the practice directives and Rapallo Body Corporate v Dhlamini NO and Others; these comments supported the refusal of vague relief but were not necessary to the core maintenance and document-disclosure orders. The official law report citation for Rapallo was not provided in the text, so a fuller citation cannot be extracted from the judgment.

The decision is significant in community schemes jurisprudence because it affirms that a body corporate has a clear statutory duty under the STSMA to maintain common property and that CSOS may compel compliance where that duty is neglected. It also confirms that owners are entitled to inspect and obtain body corporate records, including financial and municipal debt documentation, reinforcing transparency and accountability in sectional title governance. At the same time, the ruling clarifies the limits of CSOS adjudicative power: inability to afford a levy is not by itself a basis for relief, and adjudicators cannot bypass the internal governance mechanisms required for terminating managing agents or appointing executive managing agents.