Page 1 of 7
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO: CT02791/ADJ/2026
In the matter between:
MARIO VAN DER WESTHUIZEN APPLICANT
And
DIRECTORS OF EVERGLADES HARTIES
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT
Presiding Member: Ms H K Dlepu
Panel Members; Dr M Chicktay
Mr F.S Mudzunga
Date of decision: 10 September 2026
DECISION AND REASONS
A. INTRODUCTION
1 This is an application brought to the Companies Tribunal by the applicant
seeking an order by the Tribunal directing the respondents to comply with all
Page 2 of 7
binding legal and regulatory obligations including, directing respondents to
take all the necessary to rectify their ongoing non- compliance within the
period determined by the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal grant further and
alternative relief as it deems appropriate to ensure proper governance and
compliance.
2 In addition to the order above the applicant in its founding affidavit, seeks an
order declaring the respondent’s director’s delinquent in terms of Section 162
of the Companies Act ,71 of 2008.
B. BACKROUND
3 The Applicant is an adult male member of the Everglades Harti es
Homeowners Association NPC ( “the HOA”) a non-profit company registered
in accordance with the Compa ny laws of South Africa with registration
number 2007/013378/08 its registered address being 26 Everglades Estate,
R512, Hartbeespoort Dam, Northwest ,0216
4 The Applicant has included in his prayers Marnie Engelbrecht, the
Chairperson of the Board, and Michael De Melo the Deputy Chairperson of
the Board, as the only two directors of the respondent against whom t he
order in terms of Section 162 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 is sought.
Page 3 of 7
5 The complaint stems from an adjudication order granted by the Community
Scheme Ombud Service in terms of Section 53 & 54 of the Community
Scheme Ombud Act NO 9 of 2011 (“CSOS Act”) dated the 31 October 2025.
6 The adjudicator granted the following relief against Everglades Estate
Homeowners Association as the first respondent and Michael De Melo as the
second respondent, in summary; -.
(i) That the relief sought in terms of Section 53 (1)(a) of the CSOS Act is
denied, as it was misconceived.
(ii) The relief sought in terms of Section 39(6) (c ) (i) of the CSOS Act was
granted in terms of Section 54(1) of CSOS Act wherein the first respondent
was ordered t o remove the containers containing human faeces located in
front of the applicant’s property within 60 (sixty) days of the order.
(ii)The Respondent was ordered in terms of Section 39( 6) (c) (i) of the CSOS
Act to complete the service entry to the sewage area within 30(thirty) days of
the order.
(iii)The Respondent was ordered in terms of Section 39(6) (c) (i) of the CSOS
Act to clean and maintain the estate and all common property within 60(sixty)
days of the order.
Page 4 of 7
(iv) The Respondent was ordered in terms of Section 39 (7) (a) of the CSOS
Act to disclose the adopted MOI filed with the CIPC within 30 (thirty)days of
the order.
(v) No order as to costs.
7. The adjudication order further highlights the applicants RIGHTS in terms of
Section 57 of the CSOS Act which provides that an applicant who is dissatisfied by
an adjudication order may appeal to the High Court, but only on a question of law.
8 It is against the background I need to address the conflated issues conflated
raised by Applicant.
9 .The Applicant sought a default order against the respondent, his reasons being
that the respondent failed to file their opposing papers within 20 days (twenty ) as
prescribed by the Tribunal Rules and that the Office of the Tribunal had confirmed
that “We do not have any record of a CTR145 having being filed by the Board of
Directors of the Everglades Harties Homeowners Association on our system ”
.The Application for relief in terms of Section 180 to 184 of the Companies Act
,2008 and Regulation 145 of the Companies Regulations,2011 on Form CTR142
was served at the Tribunal on the 8 June 2026and the default order 7 July 2026
Page 5 of 7
10.The Applicant seeks the following order from the Tribunal in support of his
application for default against the Respondents.
(i)An Order be granted on an unopposed basis /default basis.
(ii)Grant the relief sought in the CTR142 application.
(iii) Order the immediate removal of: Mr Manie Engelbrecht as Chairman and
Director of Everglades Harties Homeowners Associatio n and the removal of Mr
Michael De M elo as Deputy Chair man and Director of Everglades Harties
Homeowners Association NPC.
(iv) Direct that such removal take effect immediately upon the granting of the
Tribunal order
(v) Grant any further relief deemed appropriate to ensure pr oper governance,
accountability and compliance within the Association.
11. As the date for the application for the default , the 7July 2026, the Respondents
had not filed their response. The respondents subs equently filed their response
however no condonation application was filed.
12 The Applicant added prayers in the default application which were never raised
in the main application, and this cannot be entertained at this stage. The prayer is
non pro scripto in that there is no basis for the prayer which was never prayed for
in the main application. Thus, the judgement by default cannot be entertained.
Page 6 of 7
C JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL
13. The Companies’ s Tribunal is a South African statutory agency under the
Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (dtic) created to provide free
speedy, and in terms of Section 193 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. It is a
creature of statute and does not have inherent jurisdiction.
14. Its mandate under the Act includes resolving disputes ,reviewing decisions
made by the CIPC, and adjudicating specific applications such as disputes over
company names or access to company records but lacks the judicial jurisdiction to
strip a person of their directorship through delinquency in terms of Section 162 (5)
of the Companies Act .,this jurisdiction solely lies in the high court .
15 The Companies Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to impo se compliance of
adjudication Orders made by other fora, for instance the orders made by the
Community Schemes Ombud Service under its own legislation Act No 9 of 2011.
The High Court is the correct forum to settle such matters.
16 This, in our opinion, the applicant is embarking on a forum shopping exercise,
instead of directing or approaching the high court for the relief he seeks, to compel
the applicants. This situation is unfortunate; the applicant should apply to the hi gh
court for resolution of this matter.
Page 7 of 7
D. ORDER
17,We hereby grant the following order.
(i) The above application is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Signed
Hlaleleni Kathleen Dlepu, Presiding Member of the Tribunal