Can a body corporate institute action against the sectional title developer?

“In our sectional title scheme, it has become clear that many of the structures on the common property have been poorly built and are defective. However, the body corporate is uncertain whether it can take action against the developer for these defects and accordingly nothing is happening. Surely the body corporate should be able to do something?”

The Sectional Title Scheme Management Act 8 of 2011 (STSMA), bestows on the body corporate certain rights and responsibilities of which the most common one is to administrate an account for the repair, maintenance, management and administration of the common property.

The STSMA also establishes that a body corporate is a legal entity that can sue or be sued in its own name in respect of the following:

  1. Any contract entered into by the body corporate.
  2. Any damage to the common property.
  3. Any matter in connection with the land or building for which the body corporate is liable.
  4. Any matter arising out of the exercise of any powers or performance or non-performance of its duties
  5. Any claim against the developer in respect of the scheme if so determined by special resolution.

As the common property is owned jointly by all sectional owners of the scheme in undivided shares, the above empower a body corporate to sue in its own name to recover damages arising from damages caused to any part of the common property including taking action against the developer.

The question that follows from this is whether a special resolution is required (point 5) in order for a body corporate to take action for damage to the common property (point 2). This aspect was recently considered by our courts where it was held that if action is instituted by a body corporate against a developer under point 2, no special resolutions are required to proceed with action against the developer. Point 5 therefore does not limit the rights of the body corporate under point 2 but rather provide the body corporate with an extra power to sue developers where the claim is one “in respect of the scheme” for example, to compel performance of an obligation resting on the developer under the scheme, such as handing over all contracts concluded before the body corporate was established or payment of levies for units still registered in its name etc.

From the above it is clear that a body corporate can institute action against a developer for damages to the common property and also does not need to obtain a special resolution in order to do so. We would recommend that the body corporate solicit the help of an attorney to assist in taking the necessary steps against the developer.

November 10, 2020
Checkmate for Pawn Agreements: How the Recent SCA Judgment Protects Consumers from Pawnbroker Profits

Checkmate for Pawn Agreements: How the Recent SCA Judgment Protects Consumers from Pawnbroker Profits

In a landmark judgment delivered on 9 April 2025, where VDT Attorneys acted on behalf of the National Credit Regulator, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal (the “SCA”) brought clarity to the rights and obligations of consumers and pawnbrokers when dealing with pawned goods. In the case of The Loan Company (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator and Another (1104/2023) [2025] ZASCA 40, the SCA confirmed a critical principle, i.e. if a pawned asset is sold for more than the outstanding loan and lawful charges, the surplus must be refunded to the consumer. Pawnbrokers cannot lawfully keep the full sale proceeds. This ruling marks a major victory for consumer protection, reinforcing South Africa’s commitment to fairness in credit transactions.

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

On 24 September, we pause to take time off to commemorate Heritage Day, a day enshrined in both our public calendar and the Constitution. A constitutional affirmation of who we are, where we come from, and where we are headed as a nation. As a new breed law firm, we reflect on how the practice of law is intertwined with the heritage of the very people it serves.

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Due to the potential adverse investment impact and stakeholder concerns on the proposed amendment to the definition of “hybrid equity instrument” in the 2025 draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (“Bill”), the proposed amendment has been retracted. On 03 September, the National Treasury issued a media statement retracting the proposal to redefine hybrid equity instruments, which has been a relief to all stakeholders.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest