Deon Doubell v Trustees of Sanctuary Body Corporate

The applicant, Deon Doubell, is the registered owner of Unit 16 in Sanctuary Cove Body Corporate in Gqeberha. His unit has a distinctive L-shaped foyer entrance. After purchasing the property, he found the existing front security gate badly rusted, broken, unable to lock or slide properly, and unsuitable for keeping dogs in because of large gaps. He replaced it with a new aluminium-style security gate which he said was functional, secure, rust-resistant, aesthetically pleasing, and matched the unit’s white aluminium windows and frames. He alleged that one trustee verbally indicated that he could proceed, although he could not identify which trustee gave permission. The body corporate trustees later required him to remove the gate within 20 days, relying on conduct rule 4.2, which requires prior written approval from the trustees for the nature, design, and installation of a safety gate or similar device. The applicant approached CSOS for an order approving the already-installed gate and contending that the trustees’ refusal was unreasonable. The respondent argued that the gate did not conform to the architectural precedent in the scheme, that no proper written approval had been obtained, and that approving it would undermine enforcement and create an undesirable precedent.

• Whether the applicant’s installation of the security gate without prior written trustee approval contravened the scheme’s conduct rules.
• Whether the trustees’ refusal to approve the installed gate, and insistence on its removal, was unreasonable under section 39(6)(d) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the trustees were entitled to rely primarily on preserving precedent and general rule enforcement rather than the individual merits of the applicant’s installation.
• Whether the adjudicator could approve the installation notwithstanding the applicant’s non-compliance with the requirement of prior written approval.

The relief sought by the applicant was granted. The adjudicator ordered that the installation of the applicant’s security gate is approved. No order as to costs was made.

Even where a scheme’s conduct rules require prior written trustee approval for the installation of a security gate or alteration affecting common property or the external appearance of a unit, trustees must consider the individual merits of the application and may not refuse or withhold approval on irrelevant grounds such as preserving precedent or enforcing a blanket policy. Where the trustees fail to apply their minds, and cannot show actual aesthetic harm, nuisance, or genuine inconsistency justifying refusal, a CSOS adjudicator may declare the refusal unreasonable and approve the installation under section 39(6)(d) read with section 54(5) of the CSOS Act.

The adjudicator made general observations that community schemes are founded on self-regulation and that interference with their rules should not be undertaken lightly. The adjudicator also noted the general evidentiary principles of relevance, credibility, and proof on a balance of probabilities. In addition, the order recorded the statutory right of appeal under section 57 of the CSOS Act, namely that any appeal lies to the High Court only on a question of law within 30 days. These remarks were contextual and not necessary to the dispositive finding.

The decision is significant in South African community schemes jurisprudence because it illustrates that, although scheme rules are binding and prior written approval requirements must generally be respected, trustees may not exercise their powers rigidly or refuse approval solely to maintain precedent. The case reinforces the principle that trustees must consider the specific facts, actual aesthetic impact, nuisance, and fairness in each case. It also demonstrates the remedial powers of a CSOS adjudicator under the CSOS Act to override an unreasonable refusal and deem an alteration approved.