Blue Water

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: A96/2020

REPORTABLE:YES/NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED:
09/01/23
In the matter between
BLUE WATER CREEK HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION
(Registration Number: 2005/001197/08) Applicant
And
SIVALINGUM KANNIAH First Respondent
NIRMALA KANNIAH Second Respondent
COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE Third Respondent

ADJUDICATOR - (K. BLEIJS N.O.)
COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE Fourth Respondent
IN RE:
SIVALINGUM KANNIAH First Appellant
NIRMALA KANNIAH Second Appellant
and
1
BLUE WATER CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION First
Respondent
(Registration Number: 2005/001197/08)
COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE Second Respondent

ADJUDICATOR
(K. BLEIJS N.O.)
COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
MANAMELA AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1.] The Applicant issued an application to have the first and second
respondents’ appeal in terms of section 57(1) of the Community Schemes
Ombud Service Act, 9 of 2011 (“the CSOS Act”), set aside and to have the
Adjudication Order dated 17 October 2019 made an order of Court.
[2.] The Applicant is a Homeowners’ Association, to whom the First and

Second Respondents are members by virtue of being property owners
within a community scheme. The Third and Fourth Respondents are cited
as interested parties, having been involved in the subject case under
appeal.
[3.] The First and Second Respondents’ Notice of Appeal was served on
20 March 2020. The basis of this application is that the Respondents’
Notice of Appeal was served out of time and that the First and Second
Respondents failed to prosecute the appeal.
[4.] The application is opposed. The First and Second

Respondent appeared in person. The basis of opposition is
2
u n c l e a r, a t t h e v e r y l e a s t t h e F i r s t a n d S e c o n d R e s p o n d e n t s r e l i e s
o n t h e a p p l i c a n t ’s f a i l u r e t o e n f o r c e t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n o r d e r i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 5 6 ( 2 ) o f the CSOS Act 1 .
[5.] The first and second respondents launched an appeal in

t e r m s o f s e c t i o n 5 7 ( 1 ) o f the CSOS Act, a g a i n s t t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r :
“1. The Applicant’s application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant is ordered to and compelled to:
2.1. Build a spray on Erf 27 Blue Creek Homeowners
Association as required by the Respondent’s Directors, which is
3 x 3mm, in accordance with safety requirements according to
road reserve widths, within 60 days of date of this order.
2.2. Pay to the Respondent the fines and penalties as charges in
accordance with the MOI and the Rules;
2.3. Henceforth comply with the Memorandum of Incorporation
the Rules and Aesthetic Guidelines made in terms thereof;
2.4. There is no order Costs”.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[6.] T h e F i r s t a n d S e c o n d R e s p o n d e n t s submitted an application for

dispute resolution in terms of section 38 of the CSOS Act, on 20 June
2018.
[7.] On 18 February 2019, the Applicant filed its answer to the First
Respondent’s CSOS complaint.
[8.] The Adjudicator made an order in terms of section 53(1) of CSOS

Act.
1
Section 56(2) of the Community Schemes Ombud Services Act 9 of 2011 - If an
adjudicator’s order is for the payment of an amount of money or any other relief which
is beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court, the order may be enforced as if it
were a judgment of the High Court, and a registrar of such a Court must, on lodgement
of a copy of the order, register it as an order in such Court.”
3
[9.] The issues which were dealt with by the CSOS Adjudicator are:
9.1. Firstly, whether a spray must be opened in the Respondents’

garden wall in terms of municipal regulations and the architectural
guidelines of the Applicant; and
9.2. Secondly, whether the Applicant is lawfully entitled to charge
the fines and penalties that have been imposed on the
Respondents for contravening the Rules of the Applicant.
[ 1 0 . ] On 1 November 2019, the CSOS Adjudication Order was served on

the Applicant as well as the First and Second Respondents, in terms of
which the First and Second Respondents complaint was dismissed.
[ 11 . ] On 12 November 2019, the Applicant served a copy of the

Adjudication Order on all its members via e-mail, which e-mail the First
Respondent acknowledged receipt of on 18 November 2019.
[ 1 2 . ] On 21 November 2019, the Applicant addressed a letter to the First

Respondent requesting that they abide by the adjudication Order within
the prescribed 30-day period. The First and Second Respondent failed
and/or refused to comply with the Adjudication Order.
[ 1 3 . ] On 20 March 2020, In response, the First and Second Respondents’

eastwhile attorneys confirmed that they filed an appeal against the adjudicator’s
order with regards to the building penalties imposed. At that stage, the appeal was
already late.
[ 1 4 . ] On 3 April 2020, the First and Second Respondents’ erstwhile

attorneys, namely Barnard Inc, served a copy of the Respondents’ Notice
of appeal on the Applicant’s erstwhile attorneys, namely AM Theron Inc.
[ 1 5 . ] On 6 April 2020, the Applicant’s attorneys addressed a letter to the

Respondents’ attorneys, noting that the Respondents’ Notice of Appeal was served
4
out of time. This is by virtue of Section 57(2) of the CSOS Act, which states that an
appeal against an order must be lodged within 30 days after the date of delivery of
the order of the adjudicator.
[ 1 6 . ] On 22 April 2020, the Respondents’ attorneys noted in their letter that an

application for condonation would follow in due course. No application for
condonation was ever filed by the First and Second Respondents and no further
steps was taken to prosecute the appeal.
[ 1 7 . ] The Applicant elected to enforce its rights against the order and instituted this
application, which was served on the Respondents on the 20th of January 2022.
ISSUES OF DETERMINATION
The issues to be considered are:
[ 1 8 . ] Whether the Respondents’ Notice of Appeal dated 19 March 2020

should be set aside due to their failure and/or refusal to file their Appeal
timeously and due to their failure and/or refusal to prosecute their appeal
within a reasonable time period.
[ 1 9 . ] Whether the CSOS Award dated 17 October 2019 (Marked

Annexure “X” to the Notice of Motion) should be made an Order of Court.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
[ 2 0 . ] The objective of the Community Schemes Ombuds Service Act 9 of 2011

(“CSOS Act”), is to provide for the establishment of the Community Schemes
Ombud Service; to provide for its mandate and functions; and to provide
for a dispute resolution mechanism in community schemes; and to provide
for matters connected therewith. One of the purposes set out in the CSOS
Act, is to provide for a dispute resolution mechanism in community
schemes 2 .
2
Section 2(c) of CSOS Act
5
[ 2 1 . ] Community schemes are defined in the CSOS Act as any scheme or
arrangement in terms of which there is shared use of and responsibility
for parts of land and buildings, including but not limited to a sectional
titles development scheme, a share block company, a home or property
owner‘s association, however constituted, established to administer a
property development, a housing scheme for retired persons, and a
housing cooperative…‘
[ 2 2 . ] In terms of section 56 of the CSOS Act, an order handed down by

an adjudicator must be enforced as if it were a judgment of the High Court
or Magistrate Court, depending on the jurisdiction. The relevant court
official must, upon lodgement of the order, register it as an order of such
court.
[ 2 3 . ] Chapter 3 of the CSOC Act, provides for the procedure to be

followed in the case of dispute.
[ 2 4 . ] Section 57 (1) of CSOS Act provides that an applicant, the

association or any affected person who is dissatisfied by an adjudicator’s
order, may appeal to the High Court, but only on a question of law. (2) An
appeal against an order must be lodged within 30 days after the date of
delivery of the order of the adjudicator. (3) A person who appeals against
an order, may also apply to the High Court to stay the operation of the
order appealed against to secure the effectiveness of the appeal.
[ 2 5 . ] An appeal in terms of s 57 is not a ―civil appeal within the meaning

of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
ANALYSIS
[ 2 6 . ] It is common cause that the first and second respondent files a

complaint with the Fourth Respondent in terms of section 38 of the CSOS
6
Act 3 .
[ 2 7 . ] The adjudicator granted an order on 1 November 2020. The appeal had to be

served on or before 1 December 2020. It is common cause that the case launched
by the First and Second Respondents was unsuccessful. The First and Second
Respondent were informed of the right to appeal within 30 days in terms section
57(1) of the CSOS Act.
[ 2 8 . ] The proper manner in which such an appeal should be brought in

the circumstances is upon notice of motion supported by affidavit(s),
which should be served on the respondent parties by the sheriff. 4 Neither
the CSOS Act nor the Uniform Rules of Court prescribe a procedure for
bringing an appeal as contemplated in section 57 of SCOS Act.
[ 2 9 . ] In S t e n o r s o n a n d Ta l i k a n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C C v L i n t o n P a r k
Body Corporate and Another 2021 SA 651 the court dealt with the
process to be followed when launching an appeal, where the court
s t a t e d t h a t “an appeal against the order may not be made after 30 days
have lapsed 5 .
[30.] The First and Second respondents conceded in their heads

of argument that “it came to their knowledge that the CSOS
adjudication order is not appealable as there are no questions of
law to appeal”. The Respondents made a clear concession that the
appeal has lapsed and that the adjudication order has to take
e ff e c t .
3
38. (1) Any person may make an application if such person is a party to or affected
materially by a dispute. (2) An application must be— (a) made in the prescribed
manner and as may be required by practice directives; (b) lodged with an ombud; and
(c) accompanied by the prescribed application fee. (3) The application must include
statements setting out— (a) the relief sought by the applicant, which relief must be
within the scope of one or more of the prayers for the relief contemplated in section
39; (b) the name and address of each person the applicant considers to be affected
materially by the application; and (c) the grounds on which the relief is sought. (4) If
the applicant considers that the application qualifies for a discount or a waiver of
adjudication fees, the application must include a request for such discount or waiver.
4
Ibid paras 25-26
5
S t e n o r s o n a n d Ta l i k a n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C C v L i n t o n P a r k B o d y C o r p o r a t e a n d
Another 2021 SA 651
7
[ 3 1 . ] The Applicant made a clear indication that it would not condone a late appeal,
in its letter dated 6 April 2020. No application for condonation for was sought.
[ 3 2 . ] What may be sought in terms of section 57 is an order from this

court setting aside a decision by a statutory functionary on the narrow
ground that it was founded on an error of law. The relief available in terms
of section 57 is closely analogous to that which might be sought on
judicial review. The appeal is accordingly one that is most comfortably
niched within the third category of appeals defined in Tikly and Others v
Johannes NO and Others 1963 (2) SA 588 (T) at 590 – 591 6 .
[ 3 3 . ] Once a concession is made by the Respondents that the appeal was not file
timeously and that the is no point of law to warrant an appeal, the first and second
respondents should have complied with the adjudicator’s order.
[ 3 4 . ] The First and Second Respondents relies on the fact that the Applicant did not
lodge a copy of the order, with the Registrar of the High Court, as contemplated in
section 56(2) of CSOS Act. The said provision does not prescribe a period within
which the order should be lodged. The first and second Respondents were still
bound to comply with the order and had to comply with it within the timeframe stated
in the order. Section 56(2) only kicks in upon failure to comply.
[ 3 5 . ] The First and Second Respondents misdirected themselves that by virtue of

the fact that the Applicant launched this application, they had an opportunity to
resume with the appeal, which was not prosecuted after notice of appeal.
[ 3 6 . ] The First and Second Respondents argues that the delays relating to the
impact of COVID-19 and lock-down around March 2023 should be taken into
account to allow the appeal to be heard out of time. This argument bears no legal
basis.
Review as an alternative relief

6
Trustees, Avenues Body Corporate v Shmaryahu and Another 2015 (4) SA 566 (WCC)
8
[37.] Having notices that the order is not appealable, the first and
s e c o n d r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e i r a n s w e r i n g a ff i d a v i t o p t e d t o c h a n g e t o a
review application without making specific reliance to the relevant
provisions under the Promotion of the Administrative Justice Act 7.
[38.] The application for review was launched 885 days after they
became aware of the adjudication. The requirement is that it must
be launched within 180 days, they launched it 885 days late.
[39.] The first and second respondent did not seek any condonation
f o r l a t e n e s s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 9 o f PA J A . When the delay is
longer than 180 days, a court is required to consider whether it is in the
interests of justice for the time period to be extended 8 . T h e S C A i n
O p p o s i t i o n t o U r b a n To l l i n g A l l i a n c e v T h e S o u t h A f r i c a n N a t i o n a l
Roads Agency Limited (90/2013) [2013] ZASCA 148 (SCA), held that
-
“45. Absent any extension under section 9, the 180-day time bar
precludes us from entertaining the direct challenge by way of a
review application”
[ 4 0 . ] The standard to be applied in assessing delay under both PAJA and

legality is thus whether the delay was unreasonable 9 . Moreover, in both
assessments the proverbial clock starts running from the date that the
applicant became aware or reasonably ought to have become aware of
the action taken. U n f o r t u n a t e l y, I am also precluded from
entertaining the review application out of time without any reasons
for condonation.
7
Section 7(1) of PAJA - Any proceedings for judicial review in terms of section 6(1)
must be instituted without unreasonable delay and not later than 180 days after the
date on which the proceedings are completed or on the date on which the person
concerned was informed of the administration, administrative action.
8
Section 9(2) of PAJA -
9
City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Limited [2017] ZACC 5; 2017 (4) SA
223 (CC); 2017 (6) BCLR 730 (CC)
9
[ 4 1 . ] It is trite law that, where there is no explanation for the delay, the
delay will be undue 10
CONCLUSION
[ 4 2 . ] I find that the Applicant has made out a case for the relief sought, the First
and Second Respondents failed and/or refusal to file and to prosecute
their appeal within a reasonable time period, and it the lights of that, the
CSOS Award dated 17 October 2019 (Marked Annexure “X” to the Notice
of Motion) should stand.
COSTS
[ 4 3 . ] Unlike in the adjudication proceedings, I find it appropriate to grant an order of

cost on a punitive scale, the First and Second Respondents had no legal basis to
persist with the opposition of this declaratory order, knowing that the adjudication
order was not appealable. It may also be possible that they were advised against this
opposition and decided to proceed regardless.
ORDER –
The following order is order-
1. The First and Second Respondents’ appeal in terms of section

57(1) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act, 9 of 2011 (“the
CSOS Act”) is set aside;
2. The Adjudication Order dated 17 October 2019 is made an

order of Court, that –
The First and Second Respondents ordered to –
10
Khumalo v Member of the Executive Council for Education, KwaZulu Natal [2013]
ZACC 49; 2014 (5) SA 579 (CC); 2014 (3) BCLR 333 (CC)
10
2.1. Build a spray on Erf 27 Blue Creek Homeowners Association
as required by the Respondent’s Directors, which is 3 x 3mm, in
accordance with safety requirements according to road reserve
widths, within 60 days of date of this order.
2.2. Pay to the Respondent the fines and penalties as charges in

accordance with the MOI and the Rules.
2.3. Henceforth comply with the Memorandum of Incorporation the

Rules and Aesthetic Guidelines made in terms thereof.
3. The First and Second Respondents are liable for costs on

attorney and client scale.
P N MANAMELA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date of hearing: 24 August 2022

Judgment delivered: 9 January 2023
APPEARANCES:
Counsels for the Applicant: Adv. NG Louw
Attorneys for the Applicant: JV Rensburg Kinsella Inc Attorneys
The first and second Respondents: Appeared In Person
Blue Water Creek Homeowners Association v Kanniah

and Others (A96/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2 (9 January
2023)
11
12

Blue Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blue Water

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blue Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO.: A96/2020

In the matter between

BLUE WATER CREEK HOMEOWNERS

SIVALINGUM KANNIAH First Respondent

NIRMALA KANNIAH Second Respondent

COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE Third Respondent

COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE Fourth Respondent

NIRMALA KANNIAH Second Appellant

COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE Second Respondent

COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE Third Respondent

[2.] The Applicant is a Homeowners’ Association, to whom the First and

[4.] The application is opposed. The First and Second

[5.] The first and second respondents launched an appeal in

“1. The Applicant’s application is dismissed.

[6.] T h e F i r s t a n d S e c o n d R e s p o n d e n t s submitted an application for

[8.] The Adjudicator made an order in terms of section 53(1) of CSOS

9.1. Firstly, whether a spray must be opened in the Respondents’

[ 1 0 . ] On 1 November 2019, the CSOS Adjudication Order was served on

[ 11 . ] On 12 November 2019, the Applicant served a copy of the

[ 1 2 . ] On 21 November 2019, the Applicant addressed a letter to the First

[ 1 3 . ] On 20 March 2020, In response, the First and Second Respondents’

[ 1 4 . ] On 3 April 2020, the First and Second Respondents’ erstwhile

[ 1 5 . ] On 6 April 2020, the Applicant’s attorneys addressed a letter to the

[ 1 6 . ] On 22 April 2020, the Respondents’ attorneys noted in their letter that an

The issues to be considered are:

[ 1 8 . ] Whether the Respondents’ Notice of Appeal dated 19 March 2020

[ 1 9 . ] Whether the CSOS Award dated 17 October 2019 (Marked

[ 2 0 . ] The objective of the Community Schemes Ombuds Service Act 9 of 2011

[ 2 2 . ] In terms of section 56 of the CSOS Act, an order handed down by

[ 2 3 . ] Chapter 3 of the CSOC Act, provides for the procedure to be

[ 2 4 . ] Section 57 (1) of CSOS Act provides that an applicant, the

[ 2 5 . ] An appeal in terms of s 57 is not a ―civil appeal within the meaning

[ 2 6 . ] It is common cause that the first and second respondent files a

[ 2 7 . ] The adjudicator granted an order on 1 November 2020. The appeal had to be

[ 2 8 . ] The proper manner in which such an appeal should be brought in

[30.] The First and Second respondents conceded in their heads

[ 3 2 . ] What may be sought in terms of section 57 is an order from this

[ 3 5 . ] The First and Second Respondents misdirected themselves that by virtue of

Review as an alternative relief

[ 4 0 . ] The standard to be applied in assessing delay under both PAJA and

[ 4 3 . ] Unlike in the adjudication proceedings, I find it appropriate to grant an order of

The following order is order-

1. The First and Second Respondents’ appeal in terms of section

2. The Adjudication Order dated 17 October 2019 is made an

The First and Second Respondents ordered to –

2.2. Pay to the Respondent the fines and penalties as charges in

2.3. Henceforth comply with the Memorandum of Incorporation the

3. The First and Second Respondents are liable for costs on

Date of hearing: 24 August 2022

Counsels for the Applicant: Adv. NG Louw

Attorneys for the Applicant: JV Rensburg Kinsella Inc Attorneys

The first and second Respondents: Appeared In Person

Blue Water Creek Homeowners Association v Kanniah

You might also like