Sandra Paula Antunes Teodosio v Trustees of Arbordale Body Corporate

The applicant, Sandra Paula Antunes Teodosio, was the occupier and sister of the registered owner of Unit 1 in the Arbordale sectional title scheme in Durban. She complained to the respondent body corporate about water damage to the small bedroom ceiling in the unit, first notifying it on 29 July 2022 and later sending photographs by WhatsApp. A trustee indicated that damaged or broken roof tiles likely needed replacement and that the ceiling could then be repaired and painted. The applicant was thereafter advised by the body corporate to lodge an insurance claim for the damage. She followed that advice, obtained a quote from a contractor associated with the body corporate, and the insurer ultimately rejected the claim on 21 October 2022. On 26 October 2022 she emailed the trustees and managing agent, stating that the body corporate had to repair the roof and ceiling, but received no substantive response. She then brought a CSOS application under s 39(6)(a) seeking an order compelling the body corporate to carry out the repairs. The respondent filed no submissions. The adjudicator also noted a preliminary issue: the applicant was not the registered owner and had not provided a written resolution authorising her to act on the owner's behalf, which was said to breach s 38(1), but the adjudicator nonetheless decided the merits to bring finality to the dispute.

• Whether the applicant had standing or was properly authorised to bring the CSOS application despite not being the registered owner of the unit.
• Whether the roof constituted common property for which the body corporate bore the statutory duty of repair and maintenance under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011.
• Whether the body corporate was obliged under s 39(6)(a) of the CSOS Act to repair the leaking roof and consequential water damage to the applicant's unit.
• Whether the applicant had proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent had failed to fulfil its maintenance obligations.

The application was granted in terms of s 39(6)(a) of the CSOS Act. The respondent was ordered under s 54(2) of the CSOS Act to repair the roof and the water damage to the applicant's unit caused by the leak, including but not limited to the wall and ceiling, within 30 business days of delivery of the order. No order as to costs.

Where water ingress is caused by defects in the roof of a sectional title scheme, the roof forms part of the common property and the body corporate is statutorily obliged under s 3 of the STSMA to repair and maintain it. If the body corporate fails to do so, and the applicant proves the failure on a balance of probabilities, CSOS may grant relief under s 39(6)(a) of the CSOS Act compelling the association to carry out the necessary repairs, including consequential damage caused to the affected unit.

The adjudicator remarked that the applicant had not provided written authority from the registered owner and therefore had breached s 38(1) of the CSOS Act, but nevertheless dealt with the merits to provide finality. The adjudicator also commented that the respondent had acted incorrectly in advising the applicant to lodge an insurance claim for roof repairs and noted that the respondent appeared not to be exercising its fiduciary duty to maintain common property. These observations were ancillary to the main finding on liability for repairs.

The decision is important in the community schemes context because it affirms that, in a sectional title scheme, the roof is common property and the body corporate bears the primary statutory duty under the STSMA to maintain and repair it. It also illustrates the remedial role of CSOS under s 39(6)(a) in compelling a body corporate to perform maintenance obligations where trustees fail to act. The order further underscores that a body corporate cannot avoid its maintenance duties by directing an owner or occupier to rely on insurance where the underlying defect concerns common property.