Trustees of Eden Body Corporate v Liezel De Gouveia

The applicant, the Trustees of Eden Body Corporate, brought an application under s 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, Liezel De Gouveia, the registered owner of Unit 46 in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had contravened the scheme’s conduct rules by, among other things, keeping cats without permission, using the garage for a purpose other than that reflected on the sectional plan, removing grass from common property and paving it for personal use, keeping more than two vehicles on the premises, failing to use the garage for parking, refusing inspection of internal changes to the unit, replacing aluminium windows without following procedure, and replacing a geyser without providing the required certificate of compliance. The relief ultimately addressed by the adjudicator focused on parking and vehicle-related contraventions and on building/plumbing/electrical compliance documentation. The respondent, despite being given an opportunity, filed no submissions. The matter was therefore decided on the papers, principally on the applicant’s uncontested evidence and the scheme rules.

• Whether the respondent’s parking and vehicle-related conduct contravened the scheme’s conduct rules and constituted conduct justifying relief under s 39(2)(a) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the respondent could be compelled under s 39(6)(g) of the CSOS Act to comply with obligations relating to a defined part of the common area and scheme rules concerning use of the garage and parking areas.
• Whether the respondent could be ordered to furnish certificates of compliance for plumbing, electrical work, and geyser replacement in terms of the scheme’s rules regulating alterations and works to units/common property.
• What effect should be given to uncontested evidence where the respondent failed to participate in the adjudication process.

The application succeeded. The adjudicator granted relief under s 39(2)(a) and s 39(6)(g) of the CSOS Act. The respondent was ordered, with immediate effect, to use the garage allocated to her unit and to refrain from parking in a unit bay, and to comply with the applicant’s rule regarding the number of vehicles allowed. The respondent was further ordered to furnish the applicant within 14 days of receipt of the adjudication order with the required certificates of completion/compliance for plumbing and electrical work and for the replacement geyser. No order as to costs was made.

Owners in a sectional title/community scheme are bound by validly adopted conduct rules upon purchasing property in the scheme. Where the rules clearly regulate parking, use of garages, and approval/compliance requirements for alterations, plumbing, electrical work, and geyser replacement, CSOS may grant relief under s 39(2)(a) and s 39(6)(g) compelling compliance. In the absence of contrary evidence, uncontested evidence from the applicant may be accepted and found sufficient to discharge the onus on a balance of probabilities.

The adjudicator made general remarks about the law of evidence, noting that relevance is a threshold requirement and that evidence is relevant if it tends to make a fact more or less probable. The order also drew attention to the statutory right of appeal to the High Court under s 57 of the CSOS Act on a question of law only. To the extent the adjudicator referenced broader allegations such as pets, windows, or inspections without making specific operative orders on them, those references were not essential to the final dispositive order.

The decision is significant in community schemes law because it affirms the enforceability of body corporate conduct rules through CSOS adjudication, particularly in relation to parking control, use of garages, and compliance documentation for alterations and utility works. It also illustrates that scheme rules are treated as binding on owners who elect to purchase within the scheme, reflecting the contractual character of such rules recognised in South African jurisprudence. The case further shows that, where a respondent fails to participate, an adjudicator may grant relief on uncontested evidence if the applicant proves its case on a balance of probabilities.