Trustees of Eden Wilds Body Corporate v Karrim Property Investments (Pty) Ltd

The applicant, the Trustees of Eden Wilds Body Corporate, brought a dispute under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, Karrim Property Investments (Pty) Ltd, the owner of Unit 30 in the scheme. The dispute concerned electrical connections installed by the respondent on the scheme’s common property without the trustees’ consent. According to the applicant, the respondent channelled an electrical cable underground from his patio down common-property stairs to the common-property car park and installed an electrical box on a wooden pillar at the bottom of the stairs. The body corporate, through its managing agent, demanded removal, but the respondent refused, prompting the CSOS application. The applicant contended that the installation was unlawful, created health and safety risks for residents and holiday guests, especially children, and undermined scheme governance. The respondent argued that similar installations or plug points already existed on common property, that neighbours had consented, that his installation was largely underground and not dangerous, and that he had asked the applicant for permission but received no response. A separate dispute relating to fines was withdrawn by agreement and did not form part of the adjudication.

• Whether the respondent’s electrical cable and electrical box constituted articles placed on or attached illegally to the common area within the meaning of section 39(2)(d) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether an owner may install electrical connections on common property without the trustees’ written consent.
• Whether the respondent’s reliance on alleged similar conduct by other owners or an existing common-property plug point justified or excused the installation.
• Whether the adjudicator should grant an order compelling removal of the electrical installation under section 54 read with section 39(2)(d) of the CSOS Act.

The application succeeded. The adjudicator ordered that the electrical connections installed by the respondent on the common property without the applicant’s consent be removed in terms of section 54(3) read with section 39(2)(d) of the CSOS Act. The respondent was ordered to remove or cause the removal of the electrical connections within 30 days of the order. If the respondent failed to comply within that period, the order provides that the connections may be removed and the respondent must pay the costs occasioned by such removal. No order as to costs was made.

An owner in a sectional title/community scheme may not install electrical connections or attach items to common property without the trustees’ prior consent where such installation affects common property or the external appearance of the scheme. Such unauthorised installations constitute items illegally placed on or attached to a common area for purposes of section 39(2)(d) of the CSOS Act, and an adjudicator may order their removal under section 54. The fact that other owners may allegedly have engaged in similar conduct without enforcement does not legalise or justify the respondent’s non-compliance.

The adjudicator commented that the installation might pose a health and safety hazard to holidaymakers, visitors, guests, and especially children, and observed that failure by trustees to enforce the rules could expose them to personal liability given their fiduciary obligations under sections 7 and 8 of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act. These observations supported the decision but were not strictly necessary to the core finding that the installation was unauthorised and had to be removed.

The matter is significant in community schemes jurisprudence because it affirms the authority of a body corporate and its trustees to regulate alterations or installations affecting common property and confirms the availability of relief under section 39(2)(d) of the CSOS Act to compel removal of unauthorised items. It also reinforces that owners in sectional title schemes cannot rely on informal practices, neighbour approval, or alleged inconsistent enforcement to bypass the formal consent requirements imposed by the scheme rules and the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act.