Pretorius v Trustees of Protea Aftree-Oord Body Corporate

The applicant, Roelof Stephanus Pretorius, is the registered owner of unit 31 in the Protea Aftree-Oord sectional title scheme in Craigavon, Fourways, Gauteng. He brought a dispute resolution application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under s 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 against the body corporate, cited as the Trustees of Protea Aftree-Oord Body Corporate. His complaints concerned the administration of the scheme and included objections to compulsory meals included in levies, the subsidising of clinic/frail care services from levies, the keeping of cats in the scheme, the erection of solar panels on common-property roofs, the validity of the managing agent’s appointment, and the trustees entering into contracts with third parties before body corporate approval. The applicant filed extensive material, reportedly over 200 pages, but did not present a concise, properly structured case tied to the forms of relief available under s 39 of the CSOS Act. The respondent, despite being given two opportunities, filed no substantive response. Conciliation failed and the matter proceeded to adjudication.

• Whether the relief sought by the applicant fell within the categories of orders an adjudicator may grant under s 39 of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the applicant had made out a proper case on the facts and law, rather than expecting the adjudicator to formulate the case from extensive unstructured material.
• Whether the applicant had exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms within the body corporate before approaching CSOS.
• Whether dissatisfaction with trustees’ management decisions, absent unlawfulness and absent proper internal steps, justified CSOS intervention.

The application was dismissed in terms of s 53(1)(a) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 as misconceived. No order as to costs was made. The adjudicator noted that the dismissal did not preclude the applicant from bringing a fresh dispute after correcting the identified defects.

A CSOS adjudicator may refuse an application where the relief sought falls outside the statutorily authorised remedies in s 39 of the CSOS Act, and where the applicant has failed to formulate a proper case and has not exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms available within the community scheme. An adjudicator is not required, and is not permitted, to construct an applicant’s case from voluminous unfocused material.

The adjudicator observed that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that meals may not be included in levies. The adjudicator also commented that it would be of considerable assistance if the respondent filed submissions should the applicant lodge a fresh dispute, and that the dismissal did not prevent the applicant from approaching CSOS again once the procedural and substantive defects had been corrected.

The decision illustrates the jurisdictional limits of CSOS adjudication: adjudicators may grant only those remedies expressly authorised by s 39 of the CSOS Act. It also underscores that applicants in community-schemes disputes must present a properly formulated case and generally exhaust internal mechanisms within the scheme before approaching CSOS. The ruling is significant for sectional title and community scheme governance because it reinforces the distinction between general dissatisfaction with management and legally cognisable disputes for which statutory relief is available.