Five steps to control repeat Sectional Title disputes

Two recent court judgments show how community schemes can protect access to justice while preventing the costly recycling of disputes.

• An earlier CSOS ruling does not automatically block later proceedings involving new facts or issues that were never finally determined.
• CSOS may dismiss baseless applications, but it cannot impose a blanket ban preventing an owner from raising future disputes.
• A detailed dispute record gives schemes stronger evidence when repeated litigation becomes unreasonable, abusive or financially damaging.

A long-running dispute involving a body corporate, its managing agent, three sectional-title owners and a company operating two nightclubs eventually reached the High Court after an earlier Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) adjudication.

In Infinity IP (Pty) Ltd and Others v Body Corporate of Living Moad [2026] ZAGPJHC 581, the applicants alleged that the body corporate had failed to act properly against the nightclub operator. Their complaints included unpaid amounts, rule breaches, noise and nuisance.

The body corporate argued that an earlier CSOS adjudication prevented the matters from being raised again. The High Court disagreed, finding that the earlier proceeding had not finally determined all the issues subsequently placed before it.

“The key lesson is that an earlier CSOS adjudication does not automatically dispose of every later dispute arising from the same underlying conflict,” says Johlene Wasserman, Director of Community Schemes and Compliance at Van Deventer Dowlath & Marx Inc.

“The precise issue previously determined — and whether it would be fair to treat that determination as final between the parties — remains important.”

Why the judgment matters

Trustees, directors and managing agents must be able to demonstrate what complaint was received, which documents were considered, what process was followed, what decision was made and why.

This becomes particularly important when complaints involve alleged trustee inaction, unpaid contributions, conduct-rule enforcement, zoning, nuisance or the treatment of a particular owner or occupier.

An owner should also not automatically be labelled vexatious merely because an application was unsuccessful or because the person is outspoken or persistent.

“Persistent owners sometimes expose genuine governance failures,” says Wasserman. “The proper question is whether the latest complaint raises a genuinely new dispute based on new facts, or simply repackages an issue that has already been decided.”

The CSOS process

Section 53 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act allows an adjudicator, after investigation, to dismiss an application that is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance.

When considering costs following such a dismissal, the adjudicator must also consider previous applications brought by the applicant. According to Wasserman, the costs award is currently capped at R5,000.

While this may not cover the full expense of defending repeated disputes, a reasoned finding that an application was frivolous, vexatious or without substance could become valuable evidence if the conduct continues.

However, section 53 is not a general power to punish an owner simply for being difficult. Nor does it allow CSOS to impose a blanket, prospective ban preventing that person from bringing any future complaint.

Repeated litigation

The Constitutional Court’s ruling in Motjamela v George Local Municipality [2026] ZACC 31 provides further guidance on repeated legal proceedings.

The case involved a temporary municipal employee who brought extensive proceedings relating to the expiry of his employment contracts. The Constitutional Court accepted that restrictions on further litigation were justified, but found that the High Court’s original order was too broad.

It replaced that order with a narrower restriction confined to proceedings relating to the employment dispute. The ruling confirms that restrictions must be supported by evidence, appropriately limited and consistent with the constitutional right of access to courts.

For community schemes, the two judgments deliver a combined message: identify exactly what an earlier adjudication decided and ensure that any requested restriction on future litigation goes no further than the evidence justifies.

Create a record, not another email war

Schemes dealing with recurring disputes should stop treating every new email as though no previous correspondence or decision exists. Instead, Wasserman recommends creating a central dispute chronology recording:

• The original complaint and relief requested
• The documents and information considered
• The scheme’s response and internal process
• The issue referred to CSOS or a court
• The decision and reasons provided
• Whether and how the same issue resurfaced

“The evidence should not simply be that a particular person keeps complaining,” she says. “It should show the history of the issues, the outcomes, any overlap between successive cases and why further protection may now be necessary.”

Five steps for responding to a complaint

1. Centralise complaints.
   Use one official channel and responsible person instead of allowing uncontrolled email exchanges between owners, trustees and managing agents.
2. Identify what is genuinely new.
   Separate complaints based on new facts from matters that have already been answered, resolved or adjudicated.
3. Document the internal process.
   Record what was investigated, which documents were considered, who made the decision and the reasons for the outcome.
4. Request a reasoned CSOS finding.
   Where the evidence supports it, ask the adjudicator for a section 53 finding and an appropriate costs order.
5. Preserve the complete history.
   Retain every complaint, response, application and outcome so that any later court application can be precisely framed and properly supported.

Where proceedings become persistent and abusive, the High Court may grant protection under the Vexatious Proceedings Act. Any restriction sought must, however, be justified by the evidence and carefully limited.

Retirement schemes face particular pressure

Repeated disputes can be especially damaging in retirement schemes, where trustees and managing agents may have limited time and resources. Legal fees, administrative work and lost management capacity are ultimately funded by the community.

“The system must protect two legitimate interests,” says Wasserman. “Residents must be able to have genuine grievances heard, while the rest of the community should not have to finance the continuous re-litigation of matters that have already been fairly determined.”

The objective is not to silence owners, but to restore finality without undermining access to justice.

“A legitimate dispute deserves a fair hearing,” Wasserman concludes, “but it does not necessarily deserve an infinite number of them.”