Spilhaus Property Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Limited and Another

The applicants were individual owners of units in a sectional title scheme situated on Erf 377, Constantia, Cape Town. Before the sectional title scheme was registered, MTN and Alphen Farm Estate concluded a lease permitting the installation of a 2G cellular antenna on a building that later became common property. After registration, trustees from both precincts consented to an upgrade to a 3G antenna, which MTN installed in 2013. The upgrade was carried out without the City of Cape Town’s authorisation and thus breached the applicable zoning scheme. After objections from several owners and withdrawal of consent, the City required proper approval, which could not be obtained. The applicants approached the High Court seeking a mandatory interdict compelling MTN to remove the unlawful installation and requiring Alphen to cooperate. MTN and Alphen opposed, arguing that only the body corporate had standing under section 41 of the Sectional Titles Act. The High Court upheld the applicants’ standing and granted the interdict. The Supreme Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that section 41 deprived individual owners of standing. The matter was taken on appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was upheld. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the appeal with costs. The High Court’s order directing MTN to remove the installation and requiring Alphen’s cooperation was reinstated. MTN and Alphen were ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs in the Constitutional Court, including costs of two counsel.

The case is significant for clarifying that section 41 of the Sectional Titles Act does not strip individual sectional title owners of their common-law standing to enforce zoning and planning laws. It protects access to courts for thousands of sectional title owners and confirms that statutory mechanisms governing body corporate litigation do not extinguish independent rights arising outside the Act. The judgment reinforces constitutional interpretive principles under section 39(2) and the right of access to courts under section 34.