Selvina Perumal Naidoo v Mkhulu Ngwenya

The applicant, Selvina Perumal Naidoo, is the registered owner of unit L102 in the Lala Palm sectional title scheme in Richards Bay, KwaZulu-Natal. The respondent, Mkhulu Ngwenya, owns the upstairs unit L202. The applicant alleged that water was leaking from the respondent's unit into her unit below, causing damage to her kitchen cupboards, walls and ceiling, including cracks that were worsening. She attempted to engage the respondent, including by WhatsApp messages, but the leak was not repaired. She then applied to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) for relief under section 39(6)(b) of the CSOS Act, seeking an order compelling the respondent to repair his unit and stop the leak. The respondent did not file any submissions in response to the section 43 notice.

• Whether the applicant had established, on a balance of probabilities, that water leaking from the respondent's unit was causing damage to her unit.
• Whether the owner of the respondent's unit bore the legal duty under section 13(1) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act to repair and maintain his section so as to prevent the leak.
• Whether relief should be granted under section 39(6)(b)(i) of the CSOS Act compelling the respondent to carry out specified repairs.
• Whether further relief should be granted under section 39(7)(b) directing the trustees of the body corporate to enforce the scheme's conduct rules and intervene if the respondent failed to repair the unit.

The application was upheld. The respondent was ordered, in terms of section 39(6)(b)(i) of the CSOS Act, to effect repairs to his unit within 30 days of the order. The trustees of Lala Palm Body Corporate were ordered, in terms of section 39(7)(b), to enforce the conduct rules within 30 days and instruct the respondent to carry out the repairs, failing which PMR 31(1) must be applied. No order as to costs.

An owner in a sectional title scheme has a statutory duty under section 13(1) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act to repair and maintain his or her section in a state of good repair. Where, on a balance of probabilities, a leak from that owner's section causes damage to another owner's unit, CSOS may grant relief under section 39(6)(b)(i) compelling that owner to carry out specified repairs. In addition, where the owner's non-compliance prejudices other members, the trustees/body corporate may be directed under section 39(7)(b) to enforce the conduct rules and take the steps contemplated in PMR 31.

The adjudicator made broader observations that any order granted by the Chief Ombud must be capable of implementation, and that even if the leak had not previously been reported to the trustees, it should now be brought to their attention for intervention under the STSMA and PMR 31. The adjudicator also referred to De La Harpe v Body Corporate of Bella Toscana [2014] ZAKZDHC in discussing maintenance responsibilities relating to exclusive use areas, although those remarks were not strictly necessary to decide the central issue of the leaking private section.

This decision is significant in community schemes and sectional title governance because it confirms that an owner may be compelled through CSOS proceedings to repair defects in his or her section where those defects cause damage to another owner's unit. It also illustrates the complementary roles of the CSOS Act and the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act: the owner bears the primary maintenance obligation, while the body corporate must enforce scheme rules and may intervene where an owner's failure materially prejudices others. The matter demonstrates the practical enforcement powers available through CSOS adjudication for water ingress and inter-unit nuisance disputes.