Most conduct rules are practical and uncontroversial. Rules about noise after a certain hour, the storage of items on balconies, or waste disposal procedures are routine. But not all conduct rules stay within reasonable boundaries. Some schemes have attempted to enforce rules or make decisions that restrict residents and third parties in ways the law does not permit.
South African courts have been asked to resolve these disputes, and the judgments that have followed draw a clear line: neither a body corporate’s conduct rules nor the decisions of its trustees are immune from legal scrutiny.
What Are Conduct Rules in a Sectional Title Scheme?
A sectional title scheme is governed by two sets of rules: management rules and conduct rules. Management rules deal with the administration of the body corporate. Conduct rules regulate how owners and occupiers use their sections and the common property.
Conduct rules are contained in Annexure 3 of the Regulations to the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011. Schemes may adopt these prescribed rules as they stand, or they may amend them, but only within the limits set by the Act.
Common conduct rules cover:
- Noise and disturbances at specified times.
- Pets, including whether they are permitted and under what conditions.
- Use of common property such as pools, gyms, and braai areas.
- Parking and vehicles.
- Alterations to sections or exclusive use areas.
- Behaviour of guests and occupiers.
What Makes a Conduct Rule Valid?
For a conduct rule to be enforceable, it must meet specific requirements under the Act. Section 10 of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 governs the adoption and amendment of rules. A conduct rule must:
- Not be unreasonable.
- Not unfairly discriminate against any owner, occupier, or tenant.
- Not be inconsistent with the Act or the Regulations.
- Not be inconsistent with any law.
- Have been properly adopted by a special resolution of the body corporate.
A special resolution requires the support of at least 75% of the total participation quota of owners voting, with no more than 25% opposing. This threshold reflects how seriously the law treats changes to the rules that bind all residents.
Amended conduct rules must also be approved by the Chief Ombud before they become enforceable. Section 10(5)(b) of the Act requires the Chief Ombud to be satisfied that any change is reasonable and appropriate for the scheme before approval is granted.
Conduct rules also operate within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Rules that infringe on constitutional rights, including the right to equality, dignity, or privacy, are open to challenge.
Case Law and CSOS Practice Points
Courts and the CSOS have repeatedly confirmed that bodies corporate and trustees do not have unfettered authority. Key authorities illustrate the principles and remedies.
Legacy Body Corporate (Bae Estates and Escapes (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the Time Being of the Legacy Body Corporate)
Facts and outcome: In Western Cape High Court litigation (confirmed on appeal to the SCA), trustees imposed a blanket ban on an estate agency’s operations within a scheme under a conduct‑rule power, but applied the power well beyond its scope and without procedural fairness (no investigation, no hearing). The High Court set aside the trustees’ decision for unlawfulness and arbitrariness; the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed that trustees’ decisions are subject to judicial review at common law (and that PAJA principles may be relevant). The SCA’s language emphasised constitutional values and procedural fairness.
Legal takeaway: Trustees must act within their powers, investigate, and afford affected parties an opportunity to be heard. Arbitrary or ultra vires decisions risk review and setting aside.
Melville Body Corporate (Gonen v Trustees for the Time Being of The Melville Body Corporate and Others) [Gauteng Division]
Facts and outcome: Trustees unilaterally imposed a strict security protocol that effectively required occupiers to escort delivery personnel to and from their units. The protocol had not been adopted by the required special resolution process and was later only approved by a simple majority. The Gauteng High Court declared the protocol a conduct rule that had not been validly adopted and set it aside. The court also set aside a CSOS adjudicator’s inconsistent order and remitted matters as appropriate.
Legal takeaway: Policies or procedures that have the substance of conduct rules must be adopted through the correct process; otherwise, they are unenforceable.
Van Niekerk v Ireland Gardens Body Corporate (CSOS adjudication)
Facts and outcome: The body corporate had a long‑standing “no cats” rule while allowing dogs. A CSOS adjudicator found the cat ban unreasonable and discriminatory and set it aside. The decision illustrates how the CSOS applies the statutory reasonableness and equality tests under section 10(3) of the STSMA.
Legal takeaway: Pet restrictions will be scrutinised for reasonableness and equal application. Note that CSOS adjudications are persuasive and binding between the parties but do not create binding High Court precedent for other schemes; nonetheless, they are influential in practice.
The Role of the Community Schemes Ombud Service
The Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS), established under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, is the primary dispute resolution body for sectional title disputes in South Africa.
A resident who believes a conduct rule is unreasonable, unlawful, or is being applied unfairly may lodge a dispute with the CSOS. An adjudicator may order that a rule be varied, suspended, or set aside if it does not comply with the law. Where a CSOS adjudicator’s order is itself wrong in law, either party may appeal to the High Court under section 57 of the CSOS Act, as occurred in the Gonen case above.
The CSOS process is generally more accessible and affordable than direct litigation, and it is the prescribed route for most conduct disputes in sectional title schemes.
How to Challenge a Conduct Rule You Believe Is Unfair
A majority vote does not put a conduct rule beyond challenge. The Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 requires that conduct rules be reasonable, non-discriminatory, and lawful.
If you believe a conduct rule is unfair or unlawful, you have several options. They are best approached in the order set out below, because courts have indicated that the CSOS must generally be used as the first forum before a High Court is approached.
Step 1: Check the procedural validity of the rule
Before lodging any formal dispute, verify that the rule was validly adopted. Request a copy of the current, CSOS-approved conduct rules from the body corporate. Compare them to the rule you are challenging. A rule that was adopted by a simple majority instead of special resolution, or that was never submitted to and approved by the CSOS, is not enforceable, regardless of how many owners supported it.
Step 2: Raise the matter formally with the trustees
Put your objection in writing to the trustees. Identify the specific rule, explain why you believe it is unreasonable or unlawful, and request that they address it. Keep a record of all correspondence. If the trustees refuse to engage or dismiss your concern without adequate reason, you have a basis to escalate.
Step 3: Propose repeal or amendment at a general meeting
Any owner may propose that a conduct rule be repealed or amended at a general meeting. If you can gather sufficient support from fellow owners, a proposal can be tabled at the next annual general meeting or at a special general meeting called for the purpose. A special resolution requires a quorum of at least one-third of all owners by participation quota, with at least 75% of those present and voting supporting the change, and no more than 25% opposing. If the amendment passes, it must then be submitted to the CSOS for approval before it takes effect.
Step 4: Lodge a dispute with the CSOS
If the internal route does not resolve the matter, lodge a formal dispute with the CSOS under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. The CSOS has the power to order that a conduct rule be declared invalid, varied, or set aside where it does not comply with the law.
Step 5: Appeal a CSOS order to the High Court
If you are dissatisfied with a CSOS adjudication, section 57 of the CSOS Act allows you to appeal to the High Court, but only on a question of law and within 30 days of delivery of the order. A question of law concerns how the law was applied or interpreted, while a question of fact concerns what actually happened. For example, a wrong legal finding about whether a rule was reasonable or validly adopted may be appealable. A dispute about whether an incident occurred is factual and cannot be appealed to the High Court.
Step 6: Judicial review as an alternative
A procedurally unfair conduct rule or trustees’ decision, made without investigation, a hearing, or in bad faith, may be reviewable rather than appealable. As confirmed in the Legacy Body Corporate case, trustees’ decisions can be reviewed at common law if they are arbitrary, unreasonable, or beyond their authority. Judicial review may be more suitable than a section 57 appeal because it is not limited to questions of law. Legal advice should be obtained before choosing this route.
The key principle running through all of these options is that a majority vote, while necessary to adopt a conduct rule, does not make that rule immune from challenge. The law imposes an independent standard of reasonableness and lawfulness that no vote, however large, can override.
Conclusion
The Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 sets clear boundaries: conduct rules must be reasonable, non-discriminatory, properly adopted, and approved by the CSOS. Where those boundaries are crossed, South African courts have shown they will intervene, whether through the CSOS dispute process or direct judicial review. Residents are not without recourse, and trustees are not above the law.
While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither the writers of articles nor the publisher will bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information or recommendations contained herein. Our material is for informational purposes.