Khumalo v Trustees of Palisades Body Corporate

The applicant, Xolile Khumalo, is the owner of a unit in the Palisades sectional title scheme in Halfway Gardens, Midrand. She complained that her unit's roof was defective and that when it rained the situation inside her house became unmanageable, causing damage to her property. She sought relief under section 39(6) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act), asking that the respondent body corporate be directed to pay for the roof repairs. The respondent, the Trustees of Palisades Body Corporate, did not file a response despite being afforded time to do so. After a certificate of non-resolution was issued, the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service under the CSOS Act.
• Whether the roof in question formed part of the common property for which the body corporate bore maintenance responsibility.
• Whether, under section 39(6) of the CSOS Act, the adjudicator could order the respondent to arrange and pay for roof repairs.
• Whether the applicant had established on a balance of probabilities that the respondent had failed in its maintenance obligations and that relief should be granted.

The application was upheld. The respondent was ordered to pay the service provider to fix the roof causing problems and damage to the applicant's unit within 14 days of receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made.

Where a roof defect affecting an owner's unit concerns common property or work required for the benefit of the building generally, the body corporate is responsible under section 3(1)(l) and (t) of the STSMA to maintain and repair it. Under section 39(6) of the CSOS Act, a CSOS adjudicator may order the body corporate to arrange and pay for such repairs. An owner is not responsible for repair work that falls outside the maintenance of his or her section and is required for the building generally.

The adjudicator's general remarks on evaluating evidence, credibility, relevance, and proof on a balance of probabilities were ancillary to the core decision. The reference to Wimbledon Lodge about the body corporate being an aggregation of owners was also supportive commentary rather than the direct basis of the operative order.

This adjudication affirms, in the community schemes context, that a body corporate bears the primary statutory responsibility under the STSMA for maintenance and repair of common property, including roofing where it serves the building generally. It also illustrates the remedial power of a CSOS adjudicator under section 39(6) of the CSOS Act to compel a body corporate to undertake or fund repairs. The matter is significant as a practical example of owners obtaining relief through the CSOS where a body corporate fails to address maintenance complaints.