- A Sea Point landlord was fined R250 after dog poo was found in a shared area, but no proof linked it to his tenant’s dog.
- The Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) ruled the fine unlawful, reinforcing the need for evidence in body corporate enforcement.
- The case is a reminder of the importance of legal accountability in community schemes across South Africa.
You can’t fine someone without evidence. That’s the clear warning from the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS), following a ruling in a dispute that started with a pile of poo and ended with a powerful reminder about legal accountability in community schemes.
The case involved Kobi Baribi, a Sea Point landlord who owns a unit in Victory Court, a sectional title scheme in Fish Hoek. He was slapped with a R250 fine after building management accused his tenant’s dog of soiling the common area.
But Baribi and his tenant insisted the mess wasn’t from their dog, and said there was no proof to justify the fine. The tenant even provided video evidence suggesting the droppings came from wild birds, not his dog. Despite this, the fine stayed. So Baribi turned to CSOS. And he won.
It was just an assumption
In his written complaint, Baribi said neither he nor his tenant was warned before the fine appeared on his levy statement. “They just assumed it was my dog,” he wrote. “There was no proof, no photos, no notice, just a fine.”
In response, the Victory Court Body Corporate admitted in its submission that the dog was assumed to be the culprit, since it was the only known pet on the premises. There was no eyewitness, no camera footage, and no formal investigation.
They further argued that Baribi was advertising his flat as “pet-friendly”, something they opposed, and accused him of using his unit for short-term guests in violation of the building’s rules. But CSOS was clear that wasn’t enough to justify the fine.
CSOS: Fines must be backed by evidence
In a nine-page ruling, Adjudicator Dr Mohamed Alli Chicktay ruled in Baribi’s favour. He found that the fine was not lawfully imposed, because it was not based on any credible evidence.
“There is no real evidence before me that proves that the poo for which the applicant was fined was from the applicant’s tenant’s dog. It was merely an assumption,” the adjudicator wrote.
Under Prescribed Management Rule 25(5), a body corporate may not debit an owner’s account unless it’s for a lawful contribution, an agreed-upon charge, or the result of a court or adjudicator’s order. The same rule applies to penalties like fines; they must be justified.
The ruling also cited a key judgment from the Supreme Court of Appeal (Marine Sands v Extra Dimensions) that underscores the importance of treating owners in sectional title schemes fairly and transparently, reinforcing the broader issue of legal accountability in community schemes.
A win for everyday justice
The adjudicator ordered that the R250 fine, along with any interest or added charges, be removed from Baribi’s account. No costs were awarded.
Baribi’s story is an increasingly common one in sectional title communities, where tensions between owners, tenants, and trustees often simmer below the surface. As more buildings enforce rules around pets, short-term lets, and conduct in shared spaces, the role of CSOS as a neutral, low-cost dispute resolution platform is becoming more visible and more vital.
What this means for you
If you live in a community schem, whether you’re an owner or a tenant, you have rights. Fines, penalties, and restrictions must be applied lawfully, and with evidence. You also don’t need a lawyer to take a matter to CSOS: it’s free, accessible, and designed to resolve issues like this.
Legal expert Ashwini Singh also weighed in on the matter. “The recent issue regarding the dog poo allegedly left on common property by the tenant’s dog in the Victory Court Body Corporate... This is a serious accusation, but there is no evidence to support it.
“There is a picture of dog poo, but there is no proof that the dog poo was left by the tenant’s dog. The dog may have been let out to relieve itself, but the picture was taken some time later. There were no witnesses, only an accusation. The adjudicator cannot decide based on suspicion or gossip.”
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
5 Comments
Small complexes don’t need fines.
It’s the bigger complexes with tons of units that need them.
The problem is that there are too many units and trustees don’t check the information sent to them before making a choice.
One can never trust a ‘trustee’ who cannot read rules. It means disaster for everyone.
Do trustees not realise names get published when an adjudication order comes out? If they think they can make bad decisions in secret the reality is that csos will make their bad decisions public for everyone to see their incompetence. It’s embarassing actually…I know I’d stay away if I found out a place I wanted to buy in had trustees with brains the size of a peanut based on an adjudcation order.
LOL Victory Court should change their name!
In my scheme a trustee insisted that certain conduct rules be passed. He wanted a fine system since he is a miserable and bored old man with nothing better to do than walk around harassing his neighbours. Some owners had to get protection orders against him and now he is in trouble with CSOS for doing something underhanded and abusing his trustee powers. No one even elects him at annual general meetings, he nominates himself. It is very likely he will end up in jail at the rate he is going or on the front page of the news for corruption.