HOLDER OF A RIGHT OF EXTENSION IN A SECTIONAL TITLE SCHEME: WHEN DOES LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE CONTRIBUTION ARISE?
Club Kerkira (Pty) Limited v Trustees of Club Kerkira Body Corporate and Others (D11451/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 40 (4 June 2024)
For the sixteen owners in the Kerkira sectional title scheme, it was onerous to maintain the 44-hectare development, which was destined to house 101 owners once the anticipated phases 2, 3, and 4 of the project were finalised. This was especially true when the developer and holder of the right of extension refused to pay levies related to the maintenance of the common property over which it held the right to extend. The developer argued that it was only liable to cover maintenance expenses after they had been incurred by the body corporate, because the legislation requires it to make payments of amounts “necessary to defray” the costs.
The judgment and summary below highlight why the court found in favour of the body corporate.
The judgment can be viewed here
Summary of the Judgment
PURCHASER SIGNING ON BEHALF OF AN ENTITY TO BE FORMED HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE
Jordaan v Rajcic (2023/034165) [2024] ZAGPJHC 525 (31 May 2024)
For the sixteen owners in the Kerkira sectional title scheme, it was onerous to maintain the 44-hectare development, which was destined to house 101 owners once the anticipated phases 2, 3, and 4 of the project were finalised. This was especially true when the developer and holder of the right of extension refused to pay levies related to the maintenance of the common property over which it held the right to extend. The developer argued that it was only liable to cover maintenance expenses after they had been incurred by the body corporate, because the legislation requires it to make payments of amounts “necessary to defray” the costs.
The judgment and summary below highlight why the court found in favour of the body corporate.
