Under section 10(6) of the Act, a body corporate is obliged to have the scheme’s rules available for inspection at trustee and owner meetings, and to deliver copies of the rules to all owners and occupiers of sections.
The sectional title scheme management stakeholders, including the chairpersons and trustees (who will have to make rulings on the application of rules in the course of meetings), owners, occupiers, managing agents and legal advisers, will all have to be familiar with the content of the scheme rules and know how to interpret them.
This article contains our view on how rules made by bodies corporate, will have to be interpreted under the Act.
When interpreting the rules, a good start is to test the rules against the provisions of the Constitution of South Africa – this being the supreme law of the Republic. Clearly no law or rule of a body corporate can be contrary to any provision of the Constitution.
In addition, the specific requirements of the Act, in regard to the making of rules by a developer or a body corporate must be taken into account.
One of the first considerations is that the Act creates a hierarchy:
Section 10(2) of the Act states that the rules must provide for the “regulation, management, administration, use and enjoyment of sections and common property”.
This is the full possible scope of the rules, and they cannot validly provide for any other matter.
Thus, for example, any provision in the rules that purport to control the behaviour of owners anywhere other than in and upon the land and buildings that form part of the scheme, would be invalid.
Section 10(3) of the Act establishes the requirement that the management or conduct rules must be “reasonable and apply equally to all owners of units”. Any provision that is unreasonable will not constitute a valid rule. It is important to note the requirement that the rule be reasonable, should be based on the particular circumstances of the scheme and members of the body corporate.
There needs to be a rational basis for the interpretation – the decision should be founded on what is appropriate and fair in the circumstances.
This argument is strengthened by the fact that, in terms of section 10(5)(b) of the Act, the chief ombud must not approve any rule for filing unless he or she is satisfied that it is reasonable and appropriate to the scheme.
Section 10(4) of the Act provides that scheme rules bind the body corporate as well as the owners and occupiers of sections.
Accordingly, rules cannot validly regulate the behaviour of any other persons. The Act also contains various procedural requirements as to the types of body corporate resolutions and/or consents required for making rules.
Under section 10(5) of the Act, new and amended rules come into operation on the date that the chief ombud issues a certificate approving the rules or on the opening of the sectional title register for the scheme, whichever date is the latest.
After the rules have been tested against the requirements of the Act, the golden rule is applicable, (i.e. that the text read, as a whole and taken in context, must be given its ordinary, literal and grammatical meaning, otherwise known as its plain meaning). In this regard, authoritative dictionaries may be referred to.
In the enquiry, one seeks to establish the intentions of the legislator. This begins with looking at the text of the law – in the hopes that the intention will be clear from a reading of that text. If the intention is clear, that is the end of the enquiry.
The Interpretation Act 33 of 1957 may be useful in interpreting the detailed provisions of any rule. It deals with practical matters such as the calculation of time, the reckoning of a number of days, measurement of distances, expressions relating to writing, gender and expression as well as the meaning of various words commonly found in legislation.
Other techniques used in interpreting the text of the law are to read the long title, any preamble and the text in context. As far as possible, words must be given the same meaning throughout the rules and the Act.
However, where the intention is still not clear from the text, then it is necessary to use additional rules, guidelines, principles or presumptions of interpretation. There is no established hierarchy of these presumptions. The courts are flexible in their approach and often exercise a discretion.
General language used must be construed to include all instances within its scope. For example, if a rule requires that two trustees must sign any document on behalf of the body corporate, then the word “document” should be interpreted so as to include all written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as an official record and that binds the body corporate.
If in any rule something or a number of things are expressly included, then this means that anything else is automatically excluded. An example is that a conduct rule that forbids the keeping of dogs, cats and birds should not be interpreted so as to forbid the keeping of hamsters.
Rules, being a form of legislation, must be considered to be designed to achieve a particular purpose. Another principle of interpretation that must be used is the mischief rule. This interpretative tool looks at what mischief the law or rule is meant to remedy and prefers a meaning that achieves that objective.
There are also a number of additional presumptions in regard to the intention that underlies a rule. It is presumed, for example, that the rule is intended to advance the community’s best interests.
There are also presumptions against:
Another important consideration is contextuality.
Words can have different meanings in different contexts. In this regard, the historical setting of text is important. This may include examinations of documents providing background information about the origin of the legislation or rule.
However, it is important to note that in the interpretation of statutes, statements or documents by Parliament, are generally excluded.
Finally, the principle of stare decisis can also apply in the case of judicial interpretation of a rule. A lower court is bound by an interpretation of a higher court, and a court must consistently follow its previous interpretations.
If you have issues or queries relating to your scheme’s rules please contact us
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Estate Agent Training
Bond & Transfer Calculator
It is commonplace that disputes arise in community living schemes owing to various reasons and therefore provisions must be in place to regulate dispute resolution processes between the parties involved. In the event that one party is not satisfied with the outcome of the adjudication process, this article will look at the process as to which such party may follow on appeal in pursuit of a favourable outcome.
Read More ...Posted by Cor van Deventer on Friday, July 16, 2021 Views: 41
Time and again in our work we receive questions with regards to Community Schemes and the Schemes Ombud (CSOS).
In this brief article, we will address a few of the pertinent questions that we receive from some of our clients and members of the public at large.
Read More ...Posted by Cor van Deventer on Wednesday, July 14, 2021 Views: 99
In the event where more than one adjudication forum has concurrent jurisdiction, the Plaintiff is of course at liberty to proceed with the forum of their choice.
For example, where there is a dispute with regards to a contract, the Court under whose jurisdiction such contract was concluded and the Court under whose jurisdiction the Defendant is domiciled, both retain jurisdiction. Under these circumstances the Plaintiff will proceed with either of the two Courts.
Read More ...Posted by Cor van Deventer on Tuesday, July 13, 2021 Views: 200