Hendrik Douw Louwrens v Te Waterkant Body Corporate

The applicant, Hendrik Douw Louwrens, is the owner of unit 23 in the Te Waterkant sectional title scheme and therefore a member of the respondent body corporate. He brought an application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, seeking relief under section 39(4)(a) compelling the body corporate to call a general meeting. His complaints related mainly to two matters: first, that trustees had allegedly raised a special levy of R250,000 for the installation of a security camera system without the necessary approval; and second, that the scheme's 10-year maintenance plan had not been properly presented to members and allegedly did not comply with the prescribed management regulations. He also complained more broadly that owners were being denied a proper opportunity to speak and participate in decision-making at general meetings. The December 2022 AGM minutes showed that members had unanimously resolved that trustees should further investigate the security camera option and report back to owners, and also unanimously approved the updated 10-year maintenance plan. On 1 June 2023 the trustees adopted a round-robin resolution authorising a special levy of R250,000 for the camera system, recording that the measure was necessary to improve security and reduce guard-related costs. The adjudicator noted that the applicant had not shown that he first exhausted internal remedies, such as obtaining support from members holding at least 25% of the quotas to require the trustees to convene a special general meeting under PMR 17(4). The matter proceeded after conciliation failed and a non-resolution certificate was issued, with an in-person hearing held on 28 November 2023.

• Whether the applicant had established grounds under section 39(4)(a) of the CSOS Act for an order compelling the body corporate to call a general meeting to address the maintenance plan and security camera issues.
• Whether the applicant had first exhausted available internal remedies, including the procedure for requiring trustees to convene a special general meeting under PMR 17(4).
• Whether the trustees acted irregularly or without authority in imposing a special levy for the security camera project.
• Whether the adjudicator should intervene in the trustees' and body corporate's decision-making on the basis that their decisions were unreasonable, capricious, or procedurally defective.
• Whether the application was misconceived or without substance and liable to dismissal under section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act.

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

An application under section 39(4)(a) of the CSOS Act to compel a community scheme association to call a general meeting may be dismissed as misconceived or without substance where the applicant fails to show that available internal remedies to requisition such a meeting have first been pursued. CSOS adjudicators, being confined to statutory powers, will not lightly interfere with the governance decisions of trustees or a body corporate where those decisions fall within the powers conferred by the STSMA and prescribed management rules, and where no sufficient proof of irregularity, capriciousness, or unreasonableness is established.

The adjudicator remarked that the respondent should take note of the prescriptive requirements governing the 10-year Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Plan under PMR 21. The adjudicator also made broader observations, with reference to Bushwillow Park, Bato Star, and Wilds Homeowners Association, about the standard of reasonableness, the meaning of capricious decision-making, and the importance of respecting the autonomy of community scheme governance structures. These remarks were supportive and contextual rather than necessary to the narrow dispositive finding that the application was procedurally deficient and without substance.

The decision is significant in community schemes jurisprudence because it underscores that CSOS relief is statutory and limited to the remedies provided in section 39 of the CSOS Act, and that applicants must ordinarily first exhaust internal governance mechanisms before seeking adjudicative intervention. It also affirms the deference generally shown to trustee and body corporate decision-making in sectional title schemes, provided decisions fall within their powers and are not shown to be capricious or unreasonable. The ruling further illustrates that where an AGM is already imminent and the disputed issues are on the agenda, CSOS may regard an application to compel a meeting as unnecessary or misconceived.