Daniel Silva da Conceicao v Bradley Ho

The applicant, Daniel Silva da Conceicao, owns Unit 744 at Emerald Boulevard, Greenstone Hill, Modderfontein, Gauteng. The respondent, Bradley Ho, owns Unit 746, the unit above or associated with the alleged source of a water leak. The applicant complained from at least January 2022 to the body corporate and to the respondent that water leakage was causing damage to his bedroom and walls, including damp and bad smells. He sought an order under sections 38 and 39(6)(b)(i) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 requiring the respondent to remove tiles, apply damp-proofing, repair the leak in Unit 746, and repair damage in Unit 744. The body corporate indicated, according to the applicant, that it regarded the matter as one between the owners. The respondent denied that his unit had been proven to be the source of the leak, contended that he had cooperated in attempts to resolve the issue, and suggested that problems may have originated from another unit, namely Unit 750. The matter proceeded on the papers before the CSOS adjudicator.

• Whether the applicant proved on a balance of probabilities that the water leak affecting his unit originated from the respondent's unit
• Whether the respondent could be ordered under section 39(6)(b)(i) of the CSOS Act to carry out specified repairs
• Whether the respondent could be held liable for repairing damage in the applicant's unit in the absence of proof linking the leak to the respondent
• Whether the applicant discharged the onus of proof in CSOS proceedings

The application was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

A party seeking relief under the CSOS Act to compel another sectional owner to repair a leak or compensate for consequential damage must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the leak originated from that owner's section. In the absence of evidence establishing causation, the adjudicator cannot make an order requiring repairs or holding that owner liable for damage.

The adjudicator referred to the maintenance obligations of sectional owners under sections 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(c) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and PMR 31, and also quoted a property-management article explaining that responsibility generally follows the origin of the leak. These remarks were explanatory and contextual; the case ultimately turned on lack of proof rather than a contested interpretation of those provisions.

This decision underscores that in CSOS disputes involving leaks and inter-unit damage in sectional title schemes, an applicant must prove on a balance of probabilities that the complained-of damage originates from the respondent's section before coercive repair relief will be granted. It highlights the practical importance of expert or inspection evidence in water-leak disputes and confirms that mere allegation is insufficient to ground a repair order against another owner.