Khathutshelo Ramoliko v Sanjay Raghavjee

The applicant, Khathutshelo Ramoliko, is the owner of a unit in The Hill of Good Hope Body Corporate in Midrand. He alleged that for about three years a leak originating from the bathroom of the unit above, said to be managed by the respondent, Sanjay Raghavjee, caused ongoing water damage to his unit. According to the applicant, he repeatedly renovated the unit but the damage recurred, and the leak eventually affected the electrical board, leaving the unit without electricity and with dampness and odour. He said his tenant vacated the unit and he suffered rental loss. He complained to the body corporate and estate manager, who allegedly forwarded the complaints to the owner/manager of the upper unit without adequate response. He sought an order directing the respondent to repair the leak and to compensate him for the damage to his unit and for lost rental income. The respondent, acting on behalf of the owner of the relevant unit, denied that nothing had been done and stated that efforts were being made to repair the problem urgently, but contractors had difficulty gaining access to the premises and a burst geyser had caused further leaking.

• Whether a CSOS adjudicator has jurisdiction under section 39(6) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 to order a respondent to compensate an owner for damage to a unit and rental loss arising from a leak.
• Whether the applicant established on a balance of probabilities that he was entitled to an order directing the respondent to repair the leak under section 39(6)(a) or (b).
• Whether the relief sought was in substance delictual damages falling outside the powers conferred on a CSOS adjudicator.
• How the maintenance obligations between owners and the body corporate are allocated under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act in relation to sections and common property.

The application was dismissed. The adjudicator refused the applicant's prayer for an order directing the respondent to fix the leak and to pay for repairs to the applicant's unit and rental income. No order as to costs was made.

A CSOS adjudicator may grant only the forms of relief authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act. Where a claim is in substance a delictual claim for damages, including compensation for property damage and rental loss allegedly caused by another owner's unit, the adjudicator lacks power to award such relief. If the requested remedy falls outside section 39, the application must be dismissed. In addition, an applicant bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities entitlement to the statutory relief sought.

The adjudicator made general observations about the distinction between common property and sections under sectional title law, noting that the body corporate must maintain common property while owners must maintain their own sections. He also recorded that the respondent said repairs were being attended to urgently but contractors had struggled to gain access. To the extent these remarks were not necessary to the dispositive finding on jurisdiction and competence of relief, they are obiter. The judgment does not contain extensive separate obiter beyond these explanatory comments.

This decision is significant for community schemes jurisprudence because it affirms the limited jurisdiction of CSOS adjudicators. It underscores that CSOS is not a forum for adjudicating ordinary delictual damages claims for property damage and consequential loss, even where the dispute arises within a sectional title scheme. Such claims must generally be pursued in court. The order also reinforces that relief under section 39 of the CSOS Act is confined to the statutory categories expressly provided.