This is an interesting judgment in which the Court found in favour of owners of a sectional title scheme, inexperienced as they may be in managing a body corporate, rather than extending the appointment of an inefficient Administrator.
This, despite the fact that the scheme's finances were still in an unsatisfactory state. The Court confirmed that the Legislature prefers self administration in schemes and it should exercise its discretion accordingly, where circumstances allow.
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUMMARY OF THIS CASE
The plaintiff was appointed as an Administrator of a sectional title scheme, in terms of the provisions of section 46 of the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 (“the STA”). The application was, at the time, brought by the local municipality because of the high amount of the outstanding rates and taxes due to it.
The appointment was for a maximum period of 36 months, but the terms of the original order provided for earlier termination if the contemplated rehabilitation plan was substantially implemented beforehand; the period could also be extended if it proved necessary.
This application deals with the Administrator’s (plaintiff) application to Court for an extension of his term of office. He alleged that the body corporate was still substantially in arrears with debts and that no reasonable prospects existed that it would be able to manage itself in the near future.
This application deals with the Administrator’s (plaintiff) application to Court for an extension of his term of office. He alleged that the body corporate was still substantially in arrears with debts and that no reasonable prospects existed that it would be able to manage itself in the near future.
He also alleged that much of this was due to internal strife in the scheme, poverty of many, and the inability to agree on necessary aspects such as the appointment of managing agents.
The body corporate and some owners acting in their personal capacities opposed the application and accused the plaintiff of not performing his duties as Administrator adequately. They referred to, amongst other things, the bill run up by attorneys who were appointed to recover outstanding levies from owners in the scheme who were too poor to make good the debt owed. As such an unnecessarily large debt was incurred that was now owing to the collection attorney.
Read the full summary of the judgment here.
The body corporate and some owners acting in their personal capacities opposed the application and accused the plaintiff of not performing his duties as Administrator adequately. They referred to, amongst other things, the bill run up by attorneys who were appointed to recover outstanding levies from owners in the scheme who were too poor to make good the debt owed. As such an unnecessarily large debt was incurred that was now owing to the collection attorney.
Read the full summary of the judgment here.
