A critical analysis of the innovations introduced by the Sectional Titles Amendment Bill of 2010

Van der Merwe, C. G. (2011-01)

CITATION: Van der Merwe, C.G. 2011. A critical analysis of the innovations introduced by the Sectional Titles Amendment Bill of 2010. Stellenbosch Law Review = Stellenbosch Regstydskrif 22(1):115-136.

The original publication is available at https://journals.co.za/content/journal/ju_slr


The Sectional Titles Amendment Bill of June 2010 proposes to address gender equality, remove obsolete provisions, make technical adjustments, extend consumer protection and eliminate a substantial number of problems encountered in the practical application of the Act. The most important amendments relate to an adaptation of the definitions of "developer" and "owner"; the facilitation of unanimous resolutions; the clarification of whether doors and windows form part of a section or part of the common property; the rectification of the discrepancies pertaining to certificates of real right of extension of sections and of exclusive use areas; the fractionalisation of undivided shares in units; the extension of sections and of schemes by the addition of sections; contributions to the administrative fund and the legalisation of special levies; and a freeze on the use of exclusive use areas. This will transform the Sectional Titles Act into a highly efficient statutory instrument to tackle the ever-increasing issues facing the sectional title industry, bring clarity to conveyancers and deeds registry officials, and strengthen the position of trustees and managing agents involved in the governance of schemes. However, the relation between the relevant provisions of the Act and the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004, needs tidying up. Further main issues of concern are the overfractionalisation of rights of exclusive use; the fact that the new owner is not made liable for outstanding instalments on special levies after a unit has been registered in his or her name; the non-qualification of the wide discretion of trustees to impose special levies; the unclear division of the fund for administrative expenses into an operational and a reserve fund budgeted for at each annual general meeting and the non-adoption of a two-tiered management structure for larger and especially mixed-use schemes.

Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/104025
This item appears in the following collections: