Karen Green v Trafalgar Property Management

The applicant, Karen Green, is the registered owner of unit 217 in Greenacres Village 8, Gqeberha. The respondent, Trafalgar Property Management, acted as the executive managing agent for the scheme/body corporate. Following water-supply concerns, the scheme decided to install a borehole on common property. After investigation by the in-house committee and specialists, the preferred location selected at a special general meeting on 23 May 2023 was outside the applicant's unit. Green objected not to the borehole itself, but to the installation of the above-ground infrastructure in front of her unit, including water tanks, filtration and pump equipment. She contended that the installation would create noise, diminish the aesthetic appearance of the entrance to her unit, and reduce her property's value. She proposed an alternative location behind a small gate, which would not be adjacent to a private unit but would cost more because of additional piping. The respondent maintained that the chosen area was common property, that the decision had been properly authorised by special resolution, and that the borehole would benefit the scheme as a whole by improving water security and likely enhancing overall property values.

• Whether the body corporate/executive managing agent acted reasonably in resolving to install the borehole infrastructure in front of the applicant's unit on common property.
• Whether a CSOS adjudicator could declare or effectively set aside, as unreasonable, a scheme decision affecting an owner where the decision disproportionately interfered with that owner's use and enjoyment of her property.
• Whether the interests of the scheme as a whole in securing water supply justified placing the borehole's above-ground components directly in front of the applicant's unit despite alternative locations being available at higher cost.
• Whether the applicant had established, on a balance of probabilities, entitlement to relief under section 39 of the CSOS Act.

The relief sought by the applicant was granted. The respondent was ordered not to install the borehole's above-ground components in front of the applicant's unit, specifically the water tanks and the water pump. No order as to costs was made.

A community scheme's decision regarding improvements or installations on common property, even if approved by the majority and intended to benefit the scheme, must be objectively reasonable in relation to its impact on individual owners. Where alternative suitable locations exist, it is unreasonable to place intrusive above-ground infrastructure directly in front of an owner's unit merely for convenience or modest cost saving, particularly where the scheme fails adequately to address the adverse effects on that owner's use, enjoyment, aesthetics, and property value.

The adjudicator observed generally that bodies corporate are permitted to self-regulate and that courts or tribunals should not interfere lightly in such self-governance. The adjudicator also remarked that a borehole has underground and above-ground components and that the submersible underground pump may create minimal noise, whereas the above-ground equipment raises distinct concerns. To the extent these comments were broader explanatory observations rather than strictly necessary to the order, they are obiter.

This adjudication is significant in South African community schemes jurisprudence because it affirms that even where a body corporate or managing agent acts on a majority resolution and in pursuit of a collective benefit, the decision must still be objectively reasonable in its impact on individual owners. The order illustrates the CSOS's role in supervising community scheme governance and protecting owners from unreasonable interference with the use, enjoyment, aesthetics, and value of their units, especially where less intrusive alternatives exist at modest additional cost.