Gail Natasha Losper-Cornelius v Christine Olsen

The applicant, Gail Natasha Losper-Cornelius, is the registered owner of unit 22 in La Provance Body Corporate, a community scheme in Cape Town. She lodged a CSOS application on 11 July 2023 under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, seeking relief under section 39(4)(a) for an order requiring that an annual general meeting or special general meeting be convened. Her stated purpose was to secure the release of the respondent, Christine Olsen, and another trustee, Malize Pienaar, from their duties as trustees. The complaint arose from the alleged sharing of the applicant’s private contact number with a plumber, allegedly without her consent, which she said led to a confrontation. In response, the managing agent indicated that the relief sought had already effectively occurred before adjudication: a meeting had been held, the respondent and the other trustee had resigned or been released from office, and three new trustees had been elected.

• Whether the applicant was entitled under section 39(4)(a) of the CSOS Act to an order compelling the association to call a general meeting to deal with the specified business.
• Whether the dispute remained live or had become moot because the meeting had already been held and the trustees concerned had already vacated office.
• Whether the application was without substance, misconceived, frivolous, or vexatious for purposes of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether any costs order should be made against the applicant under section 53(2) of the CSOS Act.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 as being without substance. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

A CSOS adjudicator may grant only relief authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act, and where the factual basis for the relief sought has fallen away because the requested meeting has already occurred and the trustees in question have already been removed or released, the dispute is moot and the application may be dismissed as without substance under section 53(1)(a).

The adjudicator observed that the respondent appeared to have been cited in her personal capacity even though she likely acted as a trustee or nominated official of La Provance Body Corporate, which was not itself cited as a party. This procedural observation was noted but was not the basis of the decision. The adjudicator also remarked that the application was misconceived rather than frivolous or vexatious, which informed the decision not to make a costs order.

This decision illustrates the limits of CSOS adjudicative jurisdiction and confirms that relief under the CSOS Act must fall within section 39 and must address a live dispute. It also shows that where the practical relief sought has already been obtained, the matter becomes moot and may be dismissed as without substance. The order further reflects the cautious approach to costs in community scheme disputes, especially where an application is misconceived but not abusive.