Trustees of Ray Court Body Corporate v Doreen Hanning

The applicant, the Trustees of Ray Court Body Corporate, brought a dispute-resolution application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, Doreen Hanning, the registered owner of Unit 14 at Ray Court. The body corporate alleged that on 21 May 2023 the respondent's unit distribution board blew up, causing an electricity interruption in Unit 6 nearby. Because of concerns about a possible fire risk, the respondent's distribution board was disconnected from the main electricity supply. The applicant stated that it requested the respondent to provide an Electrical Compliance Certificate and Certificate of Compliance for her section, but she did not do so. The respondent filed no written response. The body corporate therefore sought an order compelling the respondent to submit those electrical compliance documents.

• Whether the relief sought by the applicant—an order compelling the respondent to submit an Electrical Compliance Certificate and Certificate of Compliance—fell within the categories of relief that a CSOS adjudicator may grant under section 39 of the CSOS Act.
• Whether section 39(7)(b) of the CSOS Act ('any other order proposed by the chief ombud') empowered the adjudicator to grant the order sought.
• Whether the application was misconceived because the adjudicator, as a statutory decision-maker, may exercise only powers expressly conferred by the CSOS Act.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act on the basis that the relief sought was misconceived and not competent under section 39 of the Act. No order as to costs was made.

A CSOS adjudicator may grant only relief that falls within the categories expressly authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act. Section 39(7)(b) does not confer a general residual power to make any order whatsoever; any additional order must be one specifically proposed by the Chief Ombud. Where the relief sought falls outside section 39, the application is misconceived and must be dismissed, regardless of the merits of the underlying complaint or whether the matter is opposed.

The adjudicator made general observations about evidentiary assessment, including that relevant evidence must be considered with reference to the issues in dispute and that proof is on a balance of probabilities. These remarks were not decisive because the matter was resolved on the legal competence of the relief sought rather than on factual disputes. The adjudicator also noted the statutory right of appeal to the High Court under section 57 of the CSOS Act on a question of law only.

The decision underscores the limited statutory jurisdiction of CSOS adjudicators. It confirms that even where a complaint may appear practically justified and is unopposed, CSOS may grant only relief expressly authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act. The case illustrates a strict approach to statutory interpretation in community-scheme dispute resolution and reinforces that section 39(7)(b) is not a catch-all provision permitting adjudicators to fashion any order they consider appropriate.