Community schemes across the country breathe a huge sigh of relief, following the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) on 28 March 2019, in Mount Edgecombe Country Club Estate Management Association II (RF) NPC v Singh & others (323/2018) [2019] ZASCA 30.
Here is a brief history on the series of events leading up to the recent SCA:
- Two members of the Mount Edgecombe Country Club Estate Management Association II (“the association”) approached the High Court for relief, challenging the lawfulness of certain provisions of the association’s conduct rules, including the association’s right to police the road network within the estate and to issue speeding fines (the road rules).
- On 17 November 2017, the High Court issued an order in favour of the two members, declaring the association’s road rules invalid. The High Court held that the estate’s roads were public roads, subject to the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996, and as such the association was required to obtain the necessary authorisations and/or consents under the National Road Traffic Act, before it had the power to regulate any aspect of the roads.
- What followed was 16 months of confusion and uncertainty regarding the legal status of roads within gated communities across the country and their rights to control and administer the use of estate roads.
- Thankfully the association, with special leave of the SCA, appealed against the High Court order, but only insofar as it related to the road rules.
The SCA summarised the issues for consideration as follows: “Whether roads within a private housing estate are public roads as defined in the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 and whether conduct rules ordaining a speed limit of 40 km/h within the estate are unlawful.”
The SCA made the following important conclusions:
- The roads within the estate are not public roads. The test to be applied in order to determine the nature of a road, is whether a section of the public uses the area or has a right of access (as opposed to access by invitation direct or implied) thereto. With the exception of duly authorised guests, the SCA declared that there is no right on the part of the general public to traverse the estate’s roads and therefore the roads must be regarded as private in nature.
- The relationship between the association and its members is contractual in nature. The rules of the association, including the road rules, constitutes a private contract entered into voluntarily when an owner elects to buy property within the estate. By agreement, the owners acknowledge that they and their invitees are only entitled to use the roads laid out within the estate, subject to the conduct rules.
- Owners are responsible for their guest’s behaviour. The SCA declared that any breach of the rules is a matter strictly between the owner concerned and the association. Owners are therefore required to ensure that their guests comply with the conduct rules and the association is entitled to impose sanctions against owners as a result of their guest’s non-compliance.
- The association is entitled to prescribe a lower speed limit within the estate than that prescribed by national legislation. The SCA found that it cannot be said that this goes beyond promoting, advancing and protecting the interests of the association’s members or is unreasonable. This is especially so, given the presence of children, pedestrians and animals upon or in the immediate vicinity of the roads themselves.
Whilst community schemes celebrate this victory, we wish to caution against overconfidence and urge all community schemes with internal road networks requiring regulation and management, to look carefully at their rules in the context of this judgment, to ensure that they are reasonable, appropriate and most importantly lawful.
Should you require any advice on this subject, or wish to discuss any related matter with a specialist community schemes attorney, don’t hesitate to contact our consulting department at consulting@paddocks.co.za for a no-obligation quote to provide the necessary legal assistance.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 14, Issue 04.
Specialist Community Scheme Attorney (LLB, LLM), Auren Freitas dos Santos, has previously been a Portfolio Manager and a Legal & Compliance Officer of a large managing agency.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Graham Paddock on Body Corporate Functions: Insurance
- Graham Paddock on Spending body corporate funds
- Graham Paddock on The Levy Clearance Certificate: The Body Corporate’s Cheap & Effective Weapon
- Graham Paddock on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
- Heinz Wiesner on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- February 2008
- February 2007
2 Comments.
Not related to this article, but I want to know, if a pipe burst on the owner side of the water meter, but the meter is situated about 50m from the section and on common property, who is responsible for the repair? BC or owner?
‘Any breach of the rules is a matter strictly between the owner concerned and the association’, because that is what the memorandum of incorporation dictates. The position is surely not the same in sectional title schemes where there is no longer a positive obligation on owners to ensure that their tenants, visitors etc. obey the rules See Prescribed Management Rule 3(2) Also PMR 25.(5) does not permit the body corporate to debit a member’s account with fines, without the member’s consent or the authority of a judgment or order by a
judge, adjudicator or arbitrator.