JUDGMENT
MIA, J
[1] This is an appeal against the judgment handed down on 21 December 2020. The first appellant appeals against the whole of the judgment and order. The respondents opposed the appeal. None of the other appellants referred to filed notices or appeared.
[2] The appellant’s application contained a lengthy list of grounds on which he sought to appeal. The grounds of appeal include that a complaint lodged by Mr Lerole against Mr. Jan van Den Bos & Associates, PAL Properties and Tygerberg Body Corporate with the Community Schemes Ombud Services during 2017 under case number CSOS001285/GP/17 was not relevant in the urgent application to the respondents. Furthermore, that the fifth appellant’s adjudication order was not binding. A further ground was that there were orders made under case number 10218/2019 and suspended under case number 35448/2020. This appears to have been a development after the order was handed down. The appellant referred to in the heading a list of case numbers that did not form part of this matter and papers which were not attached. The appellant listed further that the court failed to consider that the grounds on which the matter was to be heard on an urgent basis was premised on an order between parties unrelated to the above case number 30565/2020.If any only interim relief ought to have been granted related to this it was contended that the finding was based on the premise that the Body Corporate of Tygerberg and Panarama Place have an “intercorrelation” between the same set of facts.
[3] The appellant also raised issues relating to
- the appellant as an administrator of Prospect Place Body Corporate;
- the urgent order in relation to the relief the respondents could obtain within the criminal justice system;
- whether reliance on annexures W27 and W40 is factually correct;
- whether reliance on an annexure where no reference was made to Mr van den Bos, in his personal and/or
nominated official capacity as administrator was correct; - related to a finding that owners of sectional title units and/or the Body Corporate of Panarama Place may
indirectly be barred from initiating proceedings on grounds that debt incurred by occupants and the
occupants be absolved from levy payments; and - that the court approved the stay in sale of executions against the interests of the Body Corporate of
Panarama Place. - in doing the above the court failed to apply the provisions of the Sectional Title Act 95 of 1986, and
subsequently the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 and the regulations thereto
subsequently enacted which sets out the reguirements in relation to retention of financial documentation
and the administrator’s obligation thereto. - the court was unable to know that the appellants have substantially complied with the 20 March 2019
order under case number 20181/2019 albeit its suspension on 3 November 2020
