Johannes Wessel Greeff v Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others (502/2024) [2025] ZASCA 176 (28 November 2025)

Case Note

Case name: Johannes Wessel Greeff v Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others
Citation: [2025] ZASCA 176 (28 November 2025)
Date: 28 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications for the interpretation of the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 (the STA) and the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 (STSMA). The judgment highlights significant issues regarding the requirements for the extension of sectional units, particularly concerning the need for proper resolutions and adherence to legislative protocols when managing common property in a sectional title scheme. The case underscores the necessity for compliance with statutory requirements to avoid informal agreements that may lack legal standing and emphasizes the role of body corporates in managing property rights.

Cases Cited

1. Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard and Another [2014] ZACC 16; 2014 (4) SA 474 (CC)
2. Body Corporate of San Sydney v Singh and Others (779/2023) [2024] ZASCA 169 (9 December 2024)
3. Natal Joint Municipality Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality [2012] ZASCA 13; [2012] 2 All SA 262 (SCA); [2012] 4 SA 593 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

1. Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986
2. Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011

Rules of Court Cited

1. Uniform Rules of Court

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case involves an appeal by Mr. Johannes Wessel Greeff regarding the approval of building plans for the extension of his sectional unit within the Merriman Court sectional scheme. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the full court that Mr. Greeff did not meet the necessary legal requirements for the approval of his plans due to failures in adherence to statutory provisions governing the body corporate’s management and the resolution processes.

Key Issues

The key issues addressed in this case include: - Whether Mr. Greeff had obtained the necessary approvals from the body corporate to proceed with the construction based on the meeting minutes. - The validity of informal meetings and agreements concerning significant alterations to sectional units. - The threshold necessary for ratifying decisions regarding common property extensions under the STSMA.

Held

The court found that Mr. Greeff failed to demonstrate that he had properly secured the required resolutions from the body corporate for the planned extensions into common property. The informal character of certain meetings and insufficient resolution substantiation led the court to ultimately dismiss the appeal.

THE FACTS

Mr. Greeff owned section 1 in the Merriman Court sectional scheme and sought to extend his unit to accommodate his growing family. Although he received informal approvals for extensions at various points in time, such approvals were not compliant with the formalities required by the STSMA. Notably, in a 2013 meeting, provisional approval was contingent upon further plans being submitted and local authority approval.

In 2017, an attempt was made to formalize the plans, which led to an informal meeting where the body corporate acknowledged the extension intentions; however, this did not constitute full legal approval. As the years progressed, Greeff revised his plans extensively but faced opposition from other body corporate members concerned about the implications of extending into common property. The situation culminated in an application to the high court, which eventually ruled in favor of Greeff but was then overturned on appeal by the full court, leading to the current appeal.

THE ISSUES

The main legal questions that the court had to decide were whether Mr. Greeff had obtained a valid and binding resolution for the extension of his sectional unit that complied with the statutory requirements. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the formal adoption of minutes from an informal meeting constituted ratification of the decisions made without adhering to proper procedures outlined by the STSMA.

ANALYSIS

The court carefully analyzed the evolution of the approvals and resolutions concerning Mr. Greeff's extension plans, reflecting on the nature of informal meetings compared to formal resolutions. It highlighted that the body corporate operates under statutory obligations designed to protect the interests of all owners and that informal agreements cannot supersede these requirements. The judgment reaffirmed the need for adherence to legal frameworks, particularly in decisions affecting common property, emphasizing that the lack of a formal resolution or proper notification rendered the purported approvals ineffective.

The court found that although there was a history of informal deliberation among the body corporate members, such proceedings did not fulfill the rigorous standards needed for significant alterations to common property as set out in the relevant legislation. Moreover, the ruling from the earlier high court that suggested Mr. Greeff's plans had been granted tacit approval was deemed unsustainable, leading to the decision to uphold the dismissal of the appeal.

REMEDY

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the decision of the full court which had set aside the relief granted to Mr. Greeff by the high court. Costs were awarded against Mr. Greeff, including the costs of two counsel, reflective of the complexity and public interest involved in the case.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case establishes several key legal principles: - The requirement for body corporates to act within the confines of the legislation governing sectional titles, ensuring all alterations to property comply with statutory procedures. - The significance of formal resolutions passed by the body corporate must be clearly documented and ratified to avoid ambiguity regarding property rights. - Informal meetings and discussions may facilitate expediency but cannot serve as substitutes for the legal standards established in managing sectional title schemes. The judgment serves as a critical reminder that compliance with legal procedures is essential in maintaining the integrity of property rights in sectional title environments.