Trustees of Santolina Body Corporate v Dada Mohammed Alli

The applicant, the Trustees of Santolina Body Corporate, brought a dispute-resolution application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under section 39(2)(c) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. The respondent is the owner of a unit in the Santolina sectional title scheme. The body corporate alleged that after purchasing and moving into the unit in February 2023, the respondent kept cats at the scheme without first obtaining the trustees’ written consent as required by the conduct rules. The applicant contended that the complex was not pet friendly and that no pets had been kept there since inception, and further complained that the cats roamed on the common property. The respondent stated that the chairperson of the trustees told him the complex was non-pet friendly, said an application would be pointless, and did not initially provide proper details of the application process. The respondent further contended that when he eventually received the forms, he completed them and complied with the requirements, but by then the body corporate had already approached CSOS. The adjudicator determined the matter on the papers after conciliation had failed.

• Whether the respondent was keeping animals in the scheme contrary to the scheme governance documentation so as to justify a removal order under section 39(2)(c) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the applicant had properly exhausted or complied with the internal dispute-resolution requirements contemplated by the CSOS framework and practice directive before approaching CSOS.
• Whether, under the applicable conduct rules and prescribed management/conduct rules, the trustees could rely on a blanket 'non-pet friendly' stance despite a rule providing that written consent may not be unreasonably withheld.
• Whether the application was premature or misconceived in the absence of proper consideration of the respondent’s request for permission and adequate supporting material.

The applicant’s claim for relief under section 39(2)(c) of the CSOS Act was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

Where a scheme’s conduct rules provide that animals may be kept only with trustees’ written consent, and that such consent may not be unreasonably withheld, a body corporate cannot obtain a removal order under section 39(2)(c) of the CSOS Act merely by asserting that the scheme is generally 'not pet friendly'. The applicant must place sufficient material before the adjudicator, show compliance with internal dispute-resolution requirements, and establish that the relief sought is justified under valid scheme governance documentation. A premature application brought without exhausting internal processes or properly considering an owner’s request for consent is liable to be dismissed as misconceived.

The adjudicator observed that the conduct rules had not recently been processed through the section 10(2)(b) STSMA procedure with CSOS and that the applicant should attend to this. The adjudicator also commented that the applicant’s use of attorneys was unnecessary in the circumstances and raised a concern about who would bear those legal costs. In addition, the adjudicator reminded trustees generally that they must apply their minds to the individual facts of each case rather than slavishly following precedent or general principles.

The decision is significant in community-schemes jurisprudence because it underscores that a body corporate seeking removal of an animal under section 39(2)(c) must demonstrate proper compliance with internal dispute-resolution requirements and cannot rely on an informal or blanket 'no pets' practice where the registered conduct rules instead provide that consent may not be unreasonably withheld. It also highlights the importance of properly registered and CSOS-compliant governance documentation and confirms that trustees must exercise their discretion reasonably and on a case-by-case basis.