Simcast Body Corporate v Jaco du Preez

The applicant, the trustees of Simcast Body Corporate, brought a dispute before the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) against the respondent, Jaco du Preez, an owner in the scheme and former trustee/chairperson. While he was a trustee, it was decided that a wall in the estate would be removed to create extra parking space. The applicant alleged that the respondent took it upon himself to execute the project, that the work was incomplete and of a poor standard, and that he submitted invoices for payment and approved those payments himself. The body corporate sought an order compelling the respondent either to complete the work to the standard expected by the trustees or to refund R31 312.52 so that the body corporate could appoint a contractor to complete the project. The respondent denied that he personally undertook the work, stating that the work was done by Jan du Preez Elektries & Boukontrakteur and that he merely supplied builders through his business, Bulls Eye Services. He further contended that the body corporate still owed him money for the work and asked that CSOS rule in his favour and direct payment of the outstanding amount with interest.

• Whether the relief sought by the body corporate fell within the powers of a CSOS adjudicator under section 39(6)(b) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011.
• Whether a CSOS adjudicator may order a former trustee/owner to complete allegedly defective work on common property or reimburse the body corporate for the costs of such work.
• Whether the dispute was in substance a civil or delictual damages claim falling outside CSOS jurisdiction.
• Whether the applicant had proved on a balance of probabilities that it was entitled to the specific relief claimed against the respondent.

The application was dismissed. The adjudicator ordered that the relief sought by the applicant against the respondent be dismissed, and made no order as to costs.

A CSOS adjudicator may grant only relief authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act. Where a claim for completion of defective work or reimbursement is in substance a civil or delictual damages claim requiring inquiry into fault and quantification of loss, such relief falls outside CSOS jurisdiction and must be pursued in the civil courts. Accordingly, section 39(6)(b) cannot be used to extend CSOS powers to adjudicate ordinary damages disputes arising from allegedly defective work on common property.

The adjudicator observed that the respondent was at the centre of the project and would be the person who should account in the circumstances. The adjudicator also emphasized the body corporate's duties under the STSMA to maintain and administer common property for the benefit of all owners, and cited Wimbledon Lodge (Pty) Ltd v Gore NO and Others to illustrate the close identity between a body corporate and its members. These observations provided context but were not decisive, because the matter was ultimately dismissed on the basis that the relief sought was beyond CSOS's powers.

This adjudication is significant for confirming the limits of CSOS jurisdiction in sectional title and community scheme disputes. It underscores that CSOS cannot be used to pursue what are in substance civil or delictual damages claims, even where they are framed as repair or reimbursement orders under section 39(6)(b). The matter reinforces the distinction between governance/administrative disputes within community schemes, which CSOS may determine, and claims requiring judicial determination of fault, wrongfulness and damages, which must be brought in court.