- The High Court in Durban clarified that body corporate trustees cannot demand approval for renovations that fall outside what the scheme’s conduct rules cover.
- Judge Mossop explained that trustees generally only need to give consent if changes affect the outside of a section or involve major internal alterations, like removing walls or support columns.
- The court granted a final order allowing a commercial unit owner in an Umhlanga development to continue renovations after trustees had blocked builders from entering the property.
Sectional title schemes rely on conduct rules to regulate how owners and occupiers use their property and interact with shared spaces. These rules often govern renovations and improvements, but they do not give trustees unlimited authority to stop work.
In a judgment delivered in the High Court in Durban, Judge Rob Mossop emphasised that conduct rules exist to create order and fairness in communal living environments. “Conduct rules in a communal living scheme serve as a regulatory framework and are designed to ensure harmonious living conditions for all residents in such a scheme,” the judge explained.
He added that their value lies in balancing private ownership rights with collective interests. “They create certainty and predictability among the inhabitants of the scheme because they define what forms of behaviour are acceptable, and what forms are not.”
Importantly, the court stressed that these rules must apply equally and reasonably to all members of a scheme.
Background to the dispute
The case arose after DM Thiripathi 150325 (Pty) Ltd and Hemchund Ganessunker Maharaj attempted to renovate their commercial unit in an Umhlanga Ridge development. The premises had been leased to Chinese motor vehicle manufacturer Chery, which intended to use the space as a showroom and workshop.
To make the unit suitable for that purpose, the owners submitted architectural plans that included stackable aluminium doors and an oil and compressor system. Those plans were approved by the trustees of the Body Corporate in July 2024.
However, after a complaint by the trustees to the eThekwini Municipality, inspectors required additional fire safety measures such as a bund wall, epoxy flooring, and a sprinkler system.
Updated plans reflecting those safety requirements were later approved by the municipality. Despite this, builders who arrived to start work were denied access to the building by security guards acting on instructions from the trustees.
Court finds trustee consent only required in specific cases
The trustees argued that the applicants needed fresh approval because the building plans had been amended. Judge Mossop rejected that argument after closely analysing the wording of the scheme’s conduct rules. The court explained that the rules required trustee consent only in specific circumstances.
“It would therefore appear to me that on a proper reading of conduct rule 3, the approval of the board is only required if the improvement contemplated involves the external portion of a section or the destruction, whether total or partial, of an internal wall or support column,” the judge said.
Because the municipal fire safety requirements did not involve structural demolition or external alterations, the rules did not require further approval. “It does not appear to me that the external portion of section 1 is affected at all by what the Municipality requires,” the court found.
Trustees cannot reject the outcome of the municipal process
Another key aspect of the judgment is the court’s view that trustees cannot rely on municipal regulators and later refuse to accept the outcome. The trustees had originally triggered the municipal inspection by raising fire safety concerns.
Once the municipality imposed additional safety requirements and approved the revised plans, the trustees were expected to allow the work to proceed.
“Having relied upon the Municipality to determine the lawfulness of what it had already approved, it now does not lie in the mouth of the board to complain that it had not been heard on the work to be carried out,” Judge Mossop said.
Final order blocks interference
The High Court ultimately granted a final interdict preventing the body corporate and its trustees from interfering with the work.
“The first to eighth respondents… are prohibited from stopping the applicants and their team from carrying out renovation work,” the court ordered.
The body corporate was directed to allow access to the premises so the renovations could proceed in accordance with the approved plans.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
