CSOS and the courts: where do I take my dispute?

Here’s a look at a recent case which dealt with a dispute between the body corporate and residents in a sectional title scheme.

Buying Property On Auction | Property Blog Articles

The dispute

The body corporate sought an urgent interdict against residents of a unit who had deliberately prevented and frustrated the body corporate from carrying out essential plumbing work next to a shared communal parking space. The estate was experiencing continuous burst water pipes, resulting in excessive water bills and the risk that the insurance company would repudiate their policies with the body corporate.

The court application

In the court application, the residents (the respondents) argued that the body corporate’s (the applicants) approach to seek relief at the High Court was premature. They further argued that the relief sought falls within the jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS). The court then had to decide whether the Body Corporate’s application was procedurally correct and could be heard by the High Court instead of the CSOS.

The court’s decision

The court held that the Body Corporate is a body corporate established under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act (STSMA). In terms of section 3 of the Act, it is mandatory for a body corporate to be registered with the CSOS. As such, the Wingate Body Corporate is subject to the rules, regulations and procedures prescribed by the CSOS.

What is the function of the CSOS?

The CSOS regulates, monitors, and controls the quality of all sectional titles scheme governance documentation. It was established to provide an expeditious, informal and cost-effective mechanism for dispute resolution in community schemes, including urgent disputes.

A closer look at the judgement

Although a high court has concurrent jurisdiction to hear a matter properly brought before it, courts have adopted the view that not all matters brought before them ought to be entertained by the courts. There is, therefore, a preference for adjudication by specialised structures like the CSOS, which have been specifically created to resolve disputes of a particular nature effectively and expeditiously.

The courts held that the CSOS consists of suitably qualified adjudicators and, as such, a court is not only entitled to decline to entertain an application but may in fact be obliged to do so. The provisions of the CSOS are likened to those of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, which make it mandatory for a party to a dispute to initially seek relief from the specialized structure (in this case the CSOS). As such, the processes of the CSOS must be exhausted before a high court may be approached.

The court held that the CSOS is a primary forum to adjudicate matters of this nature and that the Body Corporate’s approach to the courts circumvented the mandatory adjudication processes of the CSOS. Therefore,  the application fell with a costs order against the applicants.

The main takeaway?

Body corporates are legally obliged to abide by the laws set out in the STSMA. They are also obligated to comply with the dispute resolution procedures provided in the STSMA and the CSOS. Where matters fall within the jurisdiction of the CSOS, they should therefore be brought before the appropriate adjudicator or the applicant may face a penalty for not complying with dispute resolution procedures.

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.

Recommended for you

The difference between movable and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

The AARTO Act: constitutional or unconstitutional?[post_view before=""]

The constitutional validity of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act and the Administrative Adjudication of Traffic Offences Amendment (AARTO Amendment) Act was recently challenged in the matter between the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) v The Minister of Transport and others.

Read More
My name has changed - what happens to my property’s title deed?
Legislative Guidelines

Universal Partnerships: what is required?[post_view before=""]

There is currently no statute in South Africa that regulates the relationships between cohabitees if they are not formally married.

Read More
Your Trusted Partner in Residential and Commercial Property Transfers
Legislative Guidelines

The deal collapsed – is the attorney to blame?[post_view before=""]

The case of Nienaber N.O. and van den Berg (the plaintiffs) versus Nelson and Kitching Attorneys (the defendants) highlights the criteria of the duty of care a conveyancer should be aware of when providing services to clients. In this case, the plaintiffs instituted action alleging that the defendants owed them a duty of care as conveyancers and acted negligently and in breach of such duty. Let’s take a closer look.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Legislative Guidelines

Court ruling: Sale of immovable property – Alienation of Land Act[post_view before=""]

In the recent case of Potgieter v Village and others, held at the High Court of South Africa, Northern Cape Division, Kimberly, the applicant applied for an urgent interdict to restrain the first and second respondents from passing transfer of a specific property. The application for the interdict was pending action by the applicant to claim transfer of the property. In this case, both parties to the contract were represented by their attorneys.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Legislative Guidelines

Can void sale agreements be revived?[post_view before=""]

Formalities are hugely important when it comes to the sale of immovable property, which is governed by the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. The act states that no sale of land is permitted unless it has been put in writing and contained in a deed of sale – also commonly referred to as an Offer to Purchase – signed by all parties involved.

Read More

Need more Snymans content?

Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

CSOS and the courts: where do I take my dispute?

Here’s a look at a recent case which dealt with a dispute between the body corporate and residents in a sectional title scheme.

Buying Property On Auction | Property Blog Articles

The dispute

The body corporate sought an urgent interdict against residents of a unit who had deliberately prevented and frustrated the body corporate from carrying out essential plumbing work next to a shared communal parking space. The estate was experiencing continuous burst water pipes, resulting in excessive water bills and the risk that the insurance company would repudiate their policies with the body corporate.

The court application

In the court application, the residents (the respondents) argued that the body corporate’s (the applicants) approach to seek relief at the High Court was premature. They further argued that the relief sought falls within the jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS). The court then had to decide whether the Body Corporate’s application was procedurally correct and could be heard by the High Court instead of the CSOS.

The court’s decision

The court held that the Body Corporate is a body corporate established under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act (STSMA). In terms of section 3 of the Act, it is mandatory for a body corporate to be registered with the CSOS. As such, the Wingate Body Corporate is subject to the rules, regulations and procedures prescribed by the CSOS.

What is the function of the CSOS?

The CSOS regulates, monitors, and controls the quality of all sectional titles scheme governance documentation. It was established to provide an expeditious, informal and cost-effective mechanism for dispute resolution in community schemes, including urgent disputes.

A closer look at the judgement

Although a high court has concurrent jurisdiction to hear a matter properly brought before it, courts have adopted the view that not all matters brought before them ought to be entertained by the courts. There is, therefore, a preference for adjudication by specialised structures like the CSOS, which have been specifically created to resolve disputes of a particular nature effectively and expeditiously.

The courts held that the CSOS consists of suitably qualified adjudicators and, as such, a court is not only entitled to decline to entertain an application but may in fact be obliged to do so. The provisions of the CSOS are likened to those of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, which make it mandatory for a party to a dispute to initially seek relief from the specialized structure (in this case the CSOS). As such, the processes of the CSOS must be exhausted before a high court may be approached.

The court held that the CSOS is a primary forum to adjudicate matters of this nature and that the Body Corporate’s approach to the courts circumvented the mandatory adjudication processes of the CSOS. Therefore,  the application fell with a costs order against the applicants.

The main takeaway?

Body corporates are legally obliged to abide by the laws set out in the STSMA. They are also obligated to comply with the dispute resolution procedures provided in the STSMA and the CSOS. Where matters fall within the jurisdiction of the CSOS, they should therefore be brought before the appropriate adjudicator or the applicant may face a penalty for not complying with dispute resolution procedures.

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.