CSOS voids body corporate’s decision refusing homeowner permission to install garden gate

• The CSOS has declared body corporate resolutions refusing permission for a garden gate void.
• The adjudicator found the trustees failed to follow the process required by the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act.
• The dispute centred on improvements to an exclusive use area and the rights of owners within sectional title schemes.

A Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) adjudicator has ruled in favour of a Durban sectional title owner, declaring body corporate resolutions refusing permission for the installation of a sliding gate in an exclusive use garden area void.

The official order was granted by Adjudicator Sihlangu Antonnette on 22 June 2026. Homeowner Cherven Singh brought the application in terms of Section 39(4)(c) and Section 39(4)(e) of the CSOS Act. She asked that the trustees’ resolution be declared void and argued that it unreasonably interfered with her rights.

The adjudicator found that the trustees failed to comply with the legal procedure required by the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act (STSMA) when they turned down the owner’s application.

Homeowner challenged refusal

Singh owns Unit 2 at The Ridge Body Corporate in Westridge, Durban. In October 2024, she applied for written approval to install a sliding gate at the entrance to Garden Area 2, which is attached to her unit as an exclusive use area.

Her exclusive use right is set out in The Ridge Management Rule 73(1), which was registered in the Deeds Office on 25 September 1986. These rights were also confirmed by an order of the High Court in Durban dated 4 September 2024. The body corporate refused her application several months later.

Singh argued that the refusal was unreasonable and unlawfully interfered with her exclusive use rights. She said the trustees failed to consider the management rules, previous installations within the scheme and the full motivation included in her application.

She pointed out that the trustees gave scant reasons for the refusal and did not address the merits or supporting documents attached to her application. She also noted that the existing sliding gate at the scheme’s main entrance had not been taken into account.

In her submission, Singh said, “The reasons provided in the respondent’s resolution are scant and fail to demonstrate that any of The Ridge Management Rules or the existing sliding gate precedent at the Mazisi Kunene Road entrance of the scheme were considered by the respondent in their decision.”

Another concern for Singh was that the trustee resolution was undated. She also alleged that one trustee who participated in the decision was conflicted due to ongoing disputes. This trustee, Dhivendra Singh, had been subject to an interim protection order from the Durban Magistrates’ Court for alleged repeated trespassing in her garden area between September 2024 and March 2025. The protection order was in force from 12 November 2024 to 23 April 2025.

Singh argued that under the scheme’s management rules, the trustee should have stepped aside from the decision because of a conflict of interest and previous penalties.

She also explained that the absence of the gate left her exclusive use area exposed to repeated trespassing. During this period, 16 incidents involving the trustee and his visitors were reported.

In her application to the CSOS, Singh asked the adjudicator to declare the body corporate’s April 2025 resolution, which refused her gate application, void or invalid. She further argued that the resolution should be set aside because it unreasonably interfered with her exclusive use rights, including her right to make improvements to the garden area as permitted by the scheme’s management rules.

Trustees defended decision

The body corporate argued that even if the trustee with the alleged conflict of interest had been excluded, the outcome would not have changed. The remaining trustees all supported the refusal.

The trustees said the proposed sliding gate would not fit in with the overall appearance of the development and could set an undesirable precedent for future alterations. In their submission, they stated, “The applicant’s proposed silver sliding gate would introduce a feature inconsistent with the appearance and architectural character of the scheme.

“There is currently no similar gate within the interior areas of the scheme, and the only sliding gate within the scheme is the main entrance gate, which serves a fundamentally different function.” They also said it was their responsibility to preserve the uniform appearance of the scheme.

The applicant had been invited to take her proposal to the annual general meeting, but declined, according to the body corporate. They pointed out that Singh had previously installed a gate in the same position, which the High Court had ordered removed.

In their submissions to the CSOS, the trustees asked for Singh’s application to be dismissed. They insisted that their decision was lawful and reasonable, and that it was made in the best interests of the scheme and its appearance.

Adjudicator finds legal process was not followed

The adjudicator examined whether the trustees had followed the correct legal framework for improvements to exclusive use areas. Prescribed Management Rule 30 allows owners to improve their exclusive use areas, but only if this is authorised by an ordinary resolution of the body corporate.

An ordinary resolution requires proper notice of a general meeting, a quorum and more than half of the owners voting in favour. The adjudicator found that the body corporate could provide no evidence that a meeting had been convened or that owners had been given a chance to vote.

Instead, the trustees rejected the application without following the correct statutory process. The adjudicator also noted that a similar resolution dated 8 August 2025 was later submitted, but again, there was no evidence of a meeting or vote.

In her written finding, Adjudicator Antonnette said, “The respondent did not make any submissions about a meeting held where the resolution was tabled and where the members of the scheme were allowed to cast their votes about the resolution. Instead, the respondent, on their own accord, decided to reject the applicant’s application without following the procedure as set out by the STSMA and its Regulations.”

The refusal was not made by ordinary resolution of the body corporate at a properly convened meeting of owners, and so the process followed by the trustees was invalid.

Resolutions declared void

The CSOS granted the homeowner’s application and declared the trustees’ resolutions refusing permission for the installation of the sliding gate void. No order was made as to costs.

The order declared the April and August 2025 resolutions void under the CSOS Act. The parties were also reminded that any appeal must be brought before the High Court and must be lodged within 30 days, and only on a question of law.

Conviction.co.za

Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.