Crause and Crause v The Trustees of Murrayfield Body Corporate and Belmont Property Management

The applicants, Christiaan Casparus Crause and Felicia Nondzondolelo Crause, are co-owners of Unit 116 in the Murrayfield Body Corporate scheme in Illovo, Sandton. They alleged that repairs, renovations or other work undertaken in the unit above them, Unit 216, with the approval of the trustees in about January 2022, caused or exacerbated water leaks, dampness and moisture damage in their unit. The alleged damage affected walls, cupboards, ceilings, the entrance area, built-in cupboards, bathroom cabinet and sink area, the geyser cabinet, carpets and parquet flooring. A leak detection report by AG Group Plumbing & Electrical dated 9 February 2022 indicated moisture and leaking associated primarily with piping in Unit 216's bathroom and also referred to pipes in the area between the units. The body corporate's insurer later rejected the insurance claim on 23 June 2022, citing gradual deterioration, multiple exposure to water, dampness, wear and tear, late notification and lack of due care and maintenance. The applicants contended that the damage resulted from the respondents' failure to maintain and repair common-property pipes and sought reimbursement of R159 000 for repairs under s 39(6)(b)(ii) of the CSOS Act. The respondents filed no submissions.

• Whether the applicants proved on a balance of probabilities that the water damage to Unit 116 originated from common property for which the body corporate was legally responsible under section 3(1)(l) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act.
• Whether the trustees/body corporate and managing agent could be ordered under section 39(6)(b)(ii) of the CSOS Act to reimburse the applicants R159 000 for repairs carried out or to be carried out.
• Whether approval by the body corporate of renovation or repair work in Unit 216 rendered the respondents liable for damage caused by that unit's internal plumbing or workmanship.
• Whether the relief sought was competent where the owner of Unit 216, identified by the evidence as the likely source of the leak, was not joined as a party to the application.

The application was dismissed. The relief sought by the applicants for reimbursement of R159 000 was refused, and no order as to costs was made.

For a reimbursement order under section 39(6)(b)(ii) of the CSOS Act against a body corporate or managing agent, an applicant must prove on a balance of probabilities that the damage and repair costs are attributable to common property or to a legal obligation resting on the respondent. Where the evidence indicates that the source of the damage is internal to another owner's section, and the applicant does not prove that common property caused or materially contributed to the damage, the body corporate cannot be held liable merely because it approved repairs or renovations in that other section. A failure to join the owner of the allegedly offending section further prevents relief being granted against that person.

The adjudicator made general observations that ducts ordinarily form part of common property; that most utility infrastructure is usually common property, except pipes, wires, cables and ducts that serve only one section and are located within that section; and that contributory negligence may require apportionment under the Apportionment of Damages Act where multiple causes contribute to damage. The adjudicator also noted, with reference to The Rapallo Body Corporate v Dhlamini NO and Others, that CSOS applications need not be formal pleadings but must define the nature and ambit of the claim with reasonable certainty. No fuller citation for Rapallo Body Corporate v Dhlamini NO and Others was provided in the judgment text.

The matter illustrates an important principle in community scheme disputes under the CSOS framework: a body corporate's maintenance obligations do not automatically make it liable for all water damage occurring in a section. The applicant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the damage originated from common property and that the body corporate was legally responsible. The decision also underscores the practical importance of proper joinder of the party allegedly responsible, especially where evidence points to another unit owner's internal plumbing or workmanship as the source of the damage. It further confirms that CSOS adjudications, although less formal than court proceedings, still require sufficiently clear factual and legal foundations for the relief sought.