ADJUDICATION ORDER IN TERMS OF SECTION 54

OF THE COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE ACT NO.9 OF 2011

Ref: CSOS5461/FS/22

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

ZELRICH BODY CORPORATE APPLICANT
And
MRS MOTSEKI RESPONDENT

ADJUDICATION ORDER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Relief applied for in terms of the CSOS Act:

SECTION 39(2) IN RESPECT OF BEHAVIOURAL ISSUES

d) an order for the removal of all articles placed on or attached illegally to parts
of a common area or a private area.
• Date Adjudication conducted: 12 DECEMBER 2022.
• Name of the Adjudicator: Thandeka Qwabe.
• Order: GRANTED.
• No order as to costs.
 CSOS5461/FS/22

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant is Zelrich Body Corporate (Respondent), a legal person in terms of the
provisions of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act No. 8 of 2011(“STSMA”) which
is situated in Isac Deviliers Street, Langenhoven Park, Bloemfontein, Free State.

2. The Respondent Mrs Motseki, owner of unit 7 at Zelrich Body Corporate, whose address is
Isac Deviliers Street, Langenhoven Park, Bloemfontein, Free State.

3. This is an application for dispute resolution in terms of section 38 of the Community Schemes
Ombud Service Act No. 9 of 2011 (the CSOS Act). The application was made in the
prescribed form and lodged with the Community Schemes Ombud Service (the CSOS).

4. The application seeking relief in terms of section 39 of the CSOS Act, is in respect of-

SECTION 39(2) IN RESPECT OF BEHAVIOURAL ISSUES

(d) an order for the removal of all articles placed on or attached illegally to parts of a
common area or a private area.

5. This matter is adjudicated in terms of the CSOS Act and Practice Directive on Dispute
Resolution, 2019 as amended and more specifically the amended Practice Directive dated
23 June 2020 which provides under paragraph 8.2: - “Adjudications will be conducted on the
papers filed by the parties and any further written submissions, documents and information
as requested by the appointed Adjudicator”. The adjudication was conducted on 12
December 2022, and an order is now determined.

6. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
There are no preliminary issues raised.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

7. Section 1 of the CSOS Act defines-
• "Community scheme" as “any scheme or arrangement in terms of which there is shared
use of and responsibility for parts of land and buildings, including but not limited to a
sectional titles development scheme, a share block company, a home or property owner's
association, however constituted, established to administer a property development, a

Page 2 of 7
 CSOS5461/FS/22
housing scheme for retired persons, and a housing cooperative and "scheme" has the same
meaning.”

• "dispute" as “a dispute in regard to the administration of a community scheme between

persons who have a material interest in that scheme, of which one of the parties is the
association, occupier or owner, acting individually or jointly.”

8. Section 38 of the CSOS Act provides-

“Any person may make an application if such person is a party to or affected materially by a
dispute”.

9. Section 45(1) provides-

“The Ombud has a discretion to grant or deny permission to amend the application or to
grant permission subject to specified conditions at any time before the Ombud refers the
application to an adjudicator.”

10. Section 47 provides-

“On acceptance of an application and after receipt of any submissions from affected persons
or responses from the applicant, if the Ombud considers that there is a reasonable prospect
of a negotiated settlement of the disputes set out in the application, the Ombud must refer
the matter to conciliation.”

11. Section 48 (1) provides-

“If the conciliation contemplated in section 47 fails, the Ombud must refer the application
together with any submissions and responses thereto to an adjudicator.”

12. In terms of Section 50-

“The adjudicator must investigate an application to decide whether it would be appropriate
to make an order.”

13. Section 51 provides for the investigative powers of the Adjudicator:

“(1) When considering the application, the adjudicator may-
(a) require the applicant, managing agent or relevant person-
(i) to give to the adjudicator further information or documentation.
(ii) to give information in the form of an affidavit or statement; or
(iii) subject to reasonable notice being given of the time and place, to come to the
office of the adjudicator for an interview.

Page 3 of 7
 CSOS5461/FS/22
(b) invite persons, whom the adjudicator considers able to assist in the resolution of issues
raised in the application, to make written submissions to the adjudicator within a specified
time; and
(c) enter and inspect-
(i) an association asset, record or other document.
(ii) any private area; and
(iii) any common area, including a common area subject to an exclusive use
arrangement.”

14. The respondent or affected person failed to provide a response to the CSOS notice in terms
of section 43. Accordingly, the dispute was therefore referred directly to Adjudication in terms
of section 48 of the CSOS Act read with Clause 21.5.7 of the Practice Directive on Dispute
Resolution on 14 October 2022. The parties will be afforded an opportunity to make final
written submissions on 16 October 2022.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE

15. Applicants Submissions

15.1 The Applicant submits that on 7 October 2022 the Respondent installed louvres on the
balcony which does not conform with the standards set by the scheme.

15.2 The Respondent submits that several emails were sent to the Applicant to remove the
structure, however the Applicant does not respond.

16. Relief Sought by Applicant

The Applicant wants the owner to remove the structure as it does not conform with the
standards set at the scheme.

17. Respondent’s Submissions

17.1 The Respondent was served with a Notice 43 in terms of the CSOS Act on 05 October 2022
to provide the Respondent an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

17.2 The Respondent did not respond, and the matter was referred directly to Adjudication on 14
October 2022 due to no response by the Respondent.

17.3 The parties were afforded an opportunity to make final written submissions on 16 October
2022.

Page 4 of 7
 CSOS5461/FS/22

18. Relief sought by the Respondent.

No relief was sought by the Respondent.

EVALUATION & FINDING

19. In evaluating the evidence and information submitted, the probabilities of the case together
with the reliability and credibility of the witnesses must be considered.

20. The general rule is that only evidence, which is relevant, should be considered. Relevance is
determined with reference to the issues in dispute. The degree or extent of proof required is
a balance of probabilities. This means that once all the evidence has been tendered, it must
be weighted up and determined whether the applicant’s version is probable. It involves
findings of facts based on an assessment of credibility and probabilities.

21. The Respondent sought consent to instal a louvre on 17 September 2021 the email read as
follows:
“I'm just requesting a permission to put on the small Louvre awing in up, in front of my property no 07
Zelrich if possible, to do so, same colour as the house…”

22. Permission was granted on 17 September 2021 with a condition . The email read as follows:
“
Kindly see the attached photo of standards set at the scheme.

You may proceed with the installation, provided that it conforms to these standards previously set.

23. It is common cause that there was compliance with Regulation 5 (1) of the STSMA under
Conduct rules which prescribes, “ The owner or occupier of a section must not, without the trustees’
written consent, make a change to the external appearance of the section or any exclusive use area
allocated to it unless the change is minor and does not detract from the appearance of the section or
the common property.”

24. The challenge comes when the Respondent did not comply with the standard set by the
scheme which the Respondent was furnished with and submitted into evidence.

Page 5 of 7
 CSOS5461/FS/22
25. The Applicant advised the Respondent to remove the louvre which did not comply with the
scheme’s standards. The Respondent hoped to convene a meeting with the trustees to reach
a solution. There was no solution hence the dispute at hand.

26. The Respondent has failed to respond to the dispute, and I am not privy to what the
Respondent’s defence is to the allegation made and why they would be of a view that they
should not remove the louvre.

27. The Respondent is bound by the rules that govern the community scheme, since the
Respondent was advised of what the Zelrich standards were he was bound to them as an
owner who bought into the scheme.

28. The case of Abraham and Another v Mount Edgecombe Country Club Estate
Management Association Two (RF) (NPC) (7124/12) [2014] ZAKZDHC 36 held:
“Where persons bind themselves voluntarily to the rules of associations when becoming owners, a
contract comes into existence to which they are bound.”

29. The Applicant’s application succeeds, and the relief sought is accordingly granted.

30. ADJUDICATION ORDER

In the circumstances, the following order is made:
30.1 The relief sought in respect of section 39(2)(d) is granted- The Respondent must remove the
louvre installed on the balcony within sixty(60) days of delivery of this order.

30.2 No order as to costs.

RIGHT OF APPEAL
31. Section 57 of the CSOS Act, provides for the right of appeal-
(1) An applicant, the association or any affected person who is dissatisfied by an adjudicator's order,
may appeal to the High Court, but only on a question of law.
(2) An appeal against an order must be lodged within 30 days after the date of delivery of the order
of the adjudicator.
(3) A person who appeals against an order, may also apply to the High Court to stay the operation
of the order appealed against to secure the effectiveness of the appeal.

DATED AT DURBAN ON 13 JANUARY 2023.

T.P QWABE

Page 6 of 7
 CSOS5461/FS/22
ADJUDICATOR

Page 7 of 7