Joanne Bezuidenhout v Hazelmere Body Corporate

Joanne Bezuidenhout, the owner of unit 46 at Hazelmere Body Corporate in Rivonia, applied to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) for relief under section 39(6)(a) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. She alleged that damp originating from common property adjacent to the garages caused damage to her garage and unit. She relied on correspondence from the managing agent in December 2020 indicating that repairs would be effected, and stated that despite repeated follow-ups, the body corporate later informed her that she would be responsible for the repair costs. She obtained an independent quotation for repairs in the amount of R57 776.00 and sought an order compelling the body corporate to repair the damage, alternatively to reimburse her if she appointed a contractor, and also to reimburse her attorney-and-client costs incurred in the dispute. The body corporate opposed the application, contending that the damp and water ingress originated from the applicant's balcony, which was an exclusive use area, and that alterations such as retiling, blocked or removed drainage outlets, and inadequate maintenance of that area caused the damage. It denied liability and argued that the claim was delictual in nature and fell outside the jurisdiction of a CSOS adjudicator.

• Whether a CSOS adjudicator has jurisdiction under section 39 of the CSOS Act to grant relief compelling a body corporate to repair damage where liability depends on disputed causation and negligence.
• Whether the applicant's claim for repairs or reimbursement was in substance a delictual damages claim rather than a section 39 community scheme remedy.
• Whether a CSOS adjudicator may order reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by a party in pursuing a dispute.
• Whether disputed questions of fault, causation, and liability requiring viva voce and expert evidence can appropriately be determined in CSOS adjudication proceedings conducted on the papers.

The application was dismissed. The adjudicator ordered that the relief sought by the applicant in prayers (a), (b), and (c) was refused, and made no order as to costs.

Where a claim framed as a request for repairs or reimbursement under section 39 of the CSOS Act in substance requires determination of delictual liability, including disputed fault and causation, a CSOS adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief. Relief that depends on establishing negligence or damages, as well as reimbursement of attorney's fees, falls outside the ambit of section 39 and must be pursued in a court of law.

The adjudicator observed that the matter could not properly be resolved without viva voce evidence from the parties and their respective experts, and that the dispute would be more appropriately ventilated in a court of law. The order also noted the parties' statutory right of appeal to the High Court on a question of law under section 57 of the CSOS Act. No official law report citation was provided in the judgment text; the citation used is therefore the CSOS reference and order date rather than a reported citation.

The decision is significant in confirming the limits of CSOS adjudication under section 39 of the CSOS Act. It underscores that CSOS is designed primarily for community scheme governance, behavioural, management, meeting, financial, and maintenance-related disputes within the statutory framework, and not for the adjudication of contested delictual damages claims requiring proof of negligence, causation, and quantum. The matter illustrates the jurisdictional boundary between CSOS dispute resolution and ordinary court proceedings in sectional title disputes.