Leonard Coetzee obo De Tijger Estate Homeowners' Association v Jerome van der Meulen

The applicant, Leonard Coetzee acting on behalf of the De Tijger Estate Homeowners' Association, obtained an adjudication order dated 20 July 2023 under section 53 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 against the respondent, Jerome van der Meulen. The present document is not the original merits decision in full, but an amended adjudication order issued after the applicant requested correction of an accidental error in paragraph 27.1 of the original order. The original paragraph mistakenly stated that the 'Applicant' was ordered to repair the handrailing on his balcony, whereas the adjudicator found this was a typographical error and that the correct party was the respondent. The amendment substituted 'Respondent' for 'Applicant' and confirmed that the respondent must repair the balcony handrailing and maintain the pavement area and garden neatly to the reasonable satisfaction of the executive committee. The remainder of the original order, including paragraphs 27.2 and 27.3, is not reproduced in the text provided.

• Whether the adjudicator had the power under the CSOS Practice Directive on Dispute Resolution of 2019 to amend the original adjudication order to correct an accidental grammatical or typographical error.
• Whether the mistaken reference to the 'Applicant' instead of the 'Respondent' in paragraph 27.1 was an accidental error or omission rather than a substantive reconsideration of the dispute.
• Whether correcting the party designation would affect the meaning, comprehension, or enforcement of the order and therefore warrant an amendment order.

The amended adjudication order was granted. Paragraph 27.1 of the original order dated 20 July 2023 was removed and replaced so that it correctly reads that the respondent, not the applicant, is ordered to repair the handrailing on his balcony in accordance with the scheme's rules on or before 30 September 2023, and that the respondent must maintain the pavement area and garden in a neat condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the executive committee. Paragraphs 27.2 and 27.3 of the original order remained unchanged.

An adjudicator under the CSOS dispute-resolution framework has the authority, in terms of the CSOS Practice Directive on Dispute Resolution of 2019, to amend an adjudication order to correct an accidental grammatical, clerical, or typographical error when such correction does not alter the substantive findings or reopen the merits of the dispute. Where an incorrect designation of a party in the operative part of the order is plainly accidental and affects the meaning or enforcement of the order, it may be corrected by amendment on written request.

The adjudicator observed that, when considering whether to amend an order, regard should be had to the nature of the error, whether it appears in the order, and whether it affects the meaning, comprehension, or enforcement of the order. The adjudicator also noted that the amendment procedure is not a mechanism for reconsidering substantive issues of fact or legal interpretation, nor for receiving further evidence. Because only the amendment order is provided, any further non-binding observations in the original order cannot be determined from the text available.

This matter is significant within South African community schemes jurisprudence because it illustrates the limited corrective power of a CSOS adjudicator to amend an order to fix an accidental error without reopening the merits. It confirms that clerical or typographical corrections are permissible where necessary to preserve the true effect, meaning, and enforceability of the original adjudication decision. The case also shows the practical operation of clauses 32.2 and 32.4 of the CSOS Practice Directive of 2019 in maintaining the integrity of CSOS orders.