Zelrich Body Corporate v Mrs Motseki

Zelrich Body Corporate, a sectional titles body corporate in Bloemfontein, brought a dispute-resolution application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) against Mrs Motseki, the owner of unit 7. The dispute concerned louvres installed by Mrs Motseki on her balcony. The respondent had requested permission on 17 September 2021 to install a small louvre awning, and permission was granted subject to the condition that the installation conform to the scheme's pre-existing architectural standards. The body corporate alleged that the louvres installed on 7 October 2022 did not comply with those standards. It sent emails requesting removal of the non-compliant structure, but the structure remained. The respondent did not provide a response to the CSOS notice issued under section 43 of the CSOS Act, and no substantive defence was placed before the adjudicator. The matter therefore proceeded on the papers to adjudication.

• Whether the louvre installed by the respondent on her balcony was placed or attached in a manner contrary to the scheme's standards and rules.
• Whether the respondent, having obtained conditional consent, was nevertheless in breach of Conduct Rule 5(1) under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act by failing to comply with the conditions and standards of the scheme.
• Whether an order under section 39(2)(d) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act should be granted directing removal of the non-compliant structure.
• What consequence should follow from the respondent's failure to respond to the CSOS proceedings.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to remove the louvre installed on the balcony within 60 days of delivery of the order. There was no order as to costs.

An owner in a sectional title scheme who receives conditional written consent to alter the external appearance of a section is bound to comply with the conditions and architectural standards of the scheme. Where the owner installs a structure that does not conform to those standards, the body corporate is entitled to relief under section 39(2)(d) of the CSOS Act directing removal of the non-compliant structure. Owners are bound by the rules of the community scheme into which they have bought.

The adjudicator referred generally to evidentiary principles, namely that relevant evidence must be assessed on a balance of probabilities with regard to credibility and probabilities. The order also noted the statutory right of appeal to the High Court under section 57 of the CSOS Act, but only on a question of law. No substantial additional obiter observations were made.

The decision illustrates the enforceability of body corporate architectural and conduct rules through the CSOS dispute-resolution mechanism. It confirms that even where an owner obtains permission for alterations, compliance with the conditions attached to that permission and with scheme standards remains mandatory. The matter also shows that section 39(2)(d) of the CSOS Act can be used to compel removal of non-compliant structures attached to sections or common/private areas in sectional title schemes.