Vonnisbespreking : die magtiging wat vereis word vir strukturele verandering aan 'n deel en die aangrensende gemeenskaplike eiendom in 'n deeltitelskema

Van der Merwe, C. G. (2016-03-08)

CITATION: Van der Merwe, C. G. 2016. Vonnisbespreking : die magtiging wat vereis word vir strukturele verandering aan 'n deel en die aangrensende gemeenskaplike eiendom in 'n deeltitelskema. LitNet Akademies, 13(1):479-490.

The original publication is available at http://www.litnet.co.za

Article

In hierdie saak moes die hof uitspraak gee oor ’n regspunt wat nie voldoende deur die Wet op Deeltitels 95 van 1986 behandel word nie. Die applikante wou twee kombuisvensters in hul woonstel op die grondvloer van ’n deeltitelkompleks vervang deur groter vensters met die doel om die invloei van natuurlike lig in die kombuis te verbeter. Weens beswaar deur die eienaar van die woonstel op die eerste vloer bokant hulle nader die applikante die hof om te bepaal watter soort magtiging vereis word om die voorgestelde verandering aan te bring. Die nuutheid van die regsvraag in hierdie saak was dat die Wet op Deeltitels en die voorgeskrewe bestuurs- en gedragsreëls nie die veranderinge binne woonstelle en aan die gemeenskaplike mure wat die woonstel omring, behoorlik reguleer nie.

In this case a farmhouse was subdivided into two sectional title units in a sectional title scheme that consisted of these two units and an additional six-storey building comprising a further 10 sectional title units. The applicants, the owners of the unit on the ground floor of the farmhouse, wanted to replace the two kitchen windows of the unit with larger windows in order to improve the flow of natural light into the kitchen. When the owner of the unit on the first floor above them objected to this project, the applicants approached the court in order to determine what kind of authority was needed to allow them to proceed with their plans. The court decided that two kinds of authorisation would be sufficient for them to proceed. In the first place the court found that the applicants would be allowed in terms of prescribed conduct rule 4 to effect not only minor alterations to the common property but also significant alterations to the outer part of the boundary wall associated with the unit as intended in this case. In the second place the court held that the intended alterations could also proceed in terms of management rule 33, which deals with luxurious and non-luxurious improvements to the common property for which the cooperation of the body corporate is needed in the form of a unanimous or a special resolution.

Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/101986
This item appears in the following collections: