Maria Avraamides v Trustees of The Glades Body Corporate

The applicant, Maria Avraamides, is the registered owner of Unit 93 in The Glades sectional title scheme in Edenvale, Gauteng. She complained of serious damp in her master bedroom, alleging that it was caused by the respondent body corporate's failure to maintain or repair the exterior wall, which formed part of the common property. She stated that the trustees wanted her to undertake interior repairs despite not first rectifying the exterior source of the damp. She also alleged that the damp aggravated her asthma and that she had unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the issue through correspondence. The respondent said the applicant had been given options regarding service providers, that the matter had been escalated to trustees, and that its maintenance supervisor believed the problem may have been caused by fibre installation through outside pipes. The respondent indicated that openings would be sealed and the applicant should thereafter monitor the situation.

• Whether the damp affecting the applicant's unit was caused by the respondent's failure to maintain common property, namely the outside wall.
• Whether the body corporate was responsible under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act to repair defects in common property causing damage inside an owner's section.
• Whether an adjudicator could grant relief under section 39(6)(b) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act directing the respondent to carry out specific repairs to both the outside wall and the inside damp damage.

The application was upheld. The respondent was ordered to repair the outside wall and the damp on the applicant's inside wall, the damp having been found to result from failure to repair or maintain the outside wall belonging to common property. The repairs had to be completed within 14 days of receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made.

Where damp within a section is caused, on a balance of probabilities, by the body corporate's failure to maintain or repair an exterior wall forming part of the common property, the body corporate is responsible under sections 3(1)(l) and 3(1)(t) of the STSMA for remedying the defect. In such circumstances, an adjudicator may grant relief under section 39(6)(b)(i) of the CSOS Act ordering the body corporate to carry out specified repairs, including repairs necessary inside the owner's unit where that internal damage flows from the unmaintained common property.

The adjudicator referred generally to the standard for evaluating evidence, including relevance, credibility, reliability and probabilities. The order also cited Wimbledon Lodge (Pty) Ltd v Gore NO and Others 2003 (2) All SA 179 (SCA) for the broader observation that a body corporate's interests are inseparable from those of the individual owners. The discussion of examples of common property and the reference to the trustees 'trying to do so' in relation to their statutory powers were ancillary observations rather than necessary to the dispositive finding.

The matter illustrates the CSOS adjudication process and confirms, in the sectional title context, that a body corporate bears the primary duty to maintain common property under the STSMA. Where a defect in common property causes damage inside an owner's section, the body corporate may be directed under section 39(6)(b) of the CSOS Act to carry out the necessary repairs. The order is significant as a practical application of the distinction between an owner's maintenance obligations and those of the body corporate.