Trustees of Villa Daniella Body Corporate and Belinda Matthee v L.F.M Rodriques

The first applicant is the Trustees of Villa Daniella Body Corporate, and the second applicant is Belinda Matthee, owner of Unit 32 in the scheme. The respondent, L.F.M Rodriques, is the owner of Unit 34, situated above Unit 32. In April 2022, a water leak from Unit 34 affected Unit 32. Although the leak initially appeared to have been fixed, it recurred by April 2023. The second applicant alleged that the respondent failed to repair the recurring leak and that her kitchen suffered resultant water damage. She reported the issue to the body corporate's managing agent, Coleman Properties. On behalf of the first applicant, the managing agent sent the respondent an email on 2 August 2023 calling on him to repair the pipes in his unit, including replacing water pipes with copper pipes, and warning that further damage to Unit 32 would be recovered from him. The respondent did not comply and made no submissions in the proceedings. The applicants approached the Community Schemes Ombud Service for an order compelling the respondent to fix the leak and to repair the damage caused to Unit 32.

• Whether the respondent, as owner of Unit 34, was obliged under the STSMA and the scheme management rules to repair the source of the water leak in his section.
• Whether the CSOS adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 39(6)(b) of the CSOS Act to order the respondent to carry out repairs to stop the leak.
• Whether the adjudicator had power under section 39 of the CSOS Act to order the respondent to repair consequential or resultant damage caused in the second applicant's unit.
• Whether the body corporate could be authorised to undertake the repairs itself and recover the reasonable costs from the respondent if he failed to comply.

The respondent was ordered to repair the water leaks arising from Unit 34, within 14 days of receipt of the order, so as to prevent damage to the second applicant's Unit 32. If the respondent failed to do so within that period, the first applicant was authorised to carry out the repairs in the respondent's unit and recover the costs from him. The second applicant's claim for an order requiring the respondent to repair resultant or consequential damage to Unit 32 was refused for lack of jurisdiction under section 39 of the CSOS Act. No order as to costs was made.

Where the source of a water leak is within an owner's section, that owner is obliged under section 13(1)(c) of the STSMA and the applicable management rules to repair and maintain the section in a state of good repair. Under section 39(6)(b) of the CSOS Act, an adjudicator may order that owner to carry out specified repairs and may authorise the body corporate to do so and recover the costs if the owner fails to comply. However, a CSOS adjudicator has no jurisdiction to order compensation for or repair of consequential damage unless the relief sought falls within the remedies expressly provided in section 39 of the CSOS Act.

The adjudicator referred generally to the principle that only relevant evidence should be considered and that the evidence must be weighed to determine whether the applicant's version is probable. The order also recorded the statutory right of appeal under section 57 of the CSOS Act, noting that an appeal lies to the High Court only on a question of law. No substantial additional obiter observations were made beyond these procedural comments.

The decision is significant in South African community schemes law because it affirms that owners in sectional title schemes bear a statutory duty under the STSMA to maintain and repair their sections where defects within their units cause harm to others. It also clarifies the limits of CSOS adjudicative power: CSOS may grant repair-related relief within section 39, but it may not award relief for consequential damages that falls outside the statutory remedies. The order further confirms that a body corporate may be authorised to undertake necessary repairs and recover the costs from a defaulting owner where the owner's failure materially prejudices others in the scheme.