Zoned Earth Dev Co (Pty) Ltd and Others v Trustees of 60 Lagoon Drive Body Corporate and Others

Three applicants, being registered owners of units in the 60 Lagoon Drive sectional title scheme, challenged the trustees' decision to procure and install a solar panel and inverter system at the scheme. The applicants alleged that they only became aware of the project in September 2021, that the trustees had not disclosed the authorising resolutions or supporting documents, and that the project constituted an improvement to common property undertaken without compliance with the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 (STSMA) and prescribed Management Rule 29(2). They further contended that the trustees had already incurred substantial expenditure and sought to halt the works, obtain documents, compel removal of the installation, and recover the costs personally from the trustees. The respondents maintained that most of the relief fell outside CSOS jurisdiction, that some documents had already been provided, that the installation benefited the scheme generally during load shedding, and that the project had been discussed at prior AGMs. By the time of adjudication, the solar installation had already been completed.

• Whether the relief sought by the applicants fell within the adjudicator's powers under section 39 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act)
• Whether the applicants were entitled to access further records and documents relating to the solar panel project under the STSMA management rules and section 39(7)(a) of the CSOS Act
• Whether the trustees had complied with prescribed Management Rule 29(2) when implementing the solar panel and inverter project as an improvement to common property
• Whether the completed installation should be removed and the common property restored
• Whether the trustees were personally liable to reimburse the body corporate for expenditure on the project for alleged breach of fiduciary duty under section 8 of the STSMA
• Whether the applicants were entitled to legal costs incurred in the CSOS proceedings

Relief A, C and F were dismissed. Relief B was granted: the first respondent was ordered, within 10 days of delivery of the order, to make available the trustees' meeting minutes or trustees' resolutions relating to the solar panel project, a breakdown of total project costs, and any report or presentation addressing the cost of operation, maintenance and repair of the system. Relief D and E were refused. No order as to costs.

An adjudicator under the CSOS Act may grant only the substantive remedies authorised by section 39. Owners are entitled, under STSMA regulations 26 and 27 read with section 39(7)(a) of the CSOS Act, to inspect and obtain body corporate records relevant to the administration of a scheme, including records relating to a disputed common-property project. Although trustees must comply with prescribed procedures, including Management Rule 29(2), when implementing improvements to common property, failure to prove such compliance does not automatically justify removal of completed works or personal liability of trustees in the absence of evidence that they acted for their own benefit or in breach of fiduciary obligations warranting such relief.

The adjudicator observed that the urgent aspect of the matter had not been processed as urgent and that the relief to stop the works was overtaken by events once the installation had been completed. She also commented that the installation appeared to have been undertaken for the benefit of the scheme during load shedding and that removal would not serve the interests of members. In addition, the adjudicator remarked that legal costs might potentially be pursued as a delictual claim elsewhere, but not under section 39 of the CSOS Act.

The decision illustrates the limited but important remedial jurisdiction of CSOS adjudicators under section 39 of the CSOS Act. It confirms that owners in sectional title schemes are entitled to access governance and financial records concerning common-property projects, and that adjudicators will enforce those record-disclosure obligations under the STSMA regulations. At the same time, the case demonstrates that not every grievance arising from allegedly irregular trustee conduct can be remedied through CSOS: procedural or interlocutory relief outside section 39, personal damages-type claims against trustees, and legal costs claims may fall beyond its jurisdiction. The order also reflects a pragmatic approach where non-compliance with procedural requirements for improvements is found, but removal of completed works is nevertheless refused because it is not considered beneficial to the scheme.