Growth Invest 133 (PTY)LTD v AM Mnakathi and Lala Palm Body Corporate

The applicant, Growth Invest 133 (PTY)LTD, claims damages to their unit G301 due to water ingress from the first respondent's unit G201 above. The body corporate was not involved in the dispute resolution process initially. The first respondent failed to respond to a CSOS Act notice and subsequent requests for submissions.

• Responsibility for repairs of damages caused by water ingress between units in a sectional title development
• Application of Section 39(6)(b) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act No.9 of 2011

The application seeking relief in terms of Section 39(6)(b) of the CSOS Act was refused. The second respondent (body corporate) was ordered to appoint an expert to determine the origin and cause of the water leak by February 29, 2024.

The court's decision is based on the lack of sufficient evidence to determine the origin of the water leak, thus refusing relief sought but ordering an expert report to be prepared.

The court noted that the body corporate has a duty to maintain common property and prepare maintenance plans. It also emphasized that parties are generally expected to cover their own costs in disputes resolved under Section 54 of the CSOS Act.

This case highlights the importance of providing expert evidence in disputes related to sectional title developments. It also underscores the role of the body corporate in addressing such issues and the limitations on adjudicators' powers under the CSOS Act.