A 1999 legal ruling on sectional title trustees in South Africa continues to define how these governing bodies should handle applications and decisions. The case Body Corporate of the Laguna Ridge Scheme v Dorse established that trustees cannot reject requests merely to avoid creating precedents. Instead, they should assess each application on its own merits and provide a justifiable reason for any denial.
The dispute originated in 1998 when a unit owner in the Laguna Ridge scheme kept a Yorkshire Terrier without first obtaining written approval from the body corporate’s trustees, as required by the scheme’s rules. When the owner later sought retroactive permission, the trustees denied the request, arguing that approving it would set an unwelcome precedent for other pets. The owner disregarded the decision, prompting the body corporate to pursue legal action.
Judge McCall’s 1999 decision clarified that trustees should engage with the substance of an application rather than dismissing it based on broader policy concerns. The ruling reinforced the necessity for them to evaluate each case individually and offer a valid rationale for their choice. This reinforced the principle that trustees serve to apply rules fairly, not to impose arbitrary limits.
Six factors now test trustee decision fairness
Subsequent legal developments have added further layers to the assessment of trustee decisions. In 2024, the case Zybutz v Body Corporate of Helianthus outlined six key factors courts now consider when evaluating whether a trustee decision is lawful. These include the nature of the decision, the expertise of the decision-maker, the considerations applied, the reasoning provided, and the impact on affected parties. Trustees should also ensure their decisions are proportionate and do not impose unjustified restrictions on members’ rights.
Another legal requirement, Prescribed Management Rule 6(3), prohibits trustees from voting on matters in which they have a personal stake. This rule aims to prevent conflicts of interest from compromising the fairness of decisions.
The combined effect of these legal standards creates expectations for trustees. Their decisions should meet both procedural fairness and substantive reasonableness-or risk judicial intervention. While the core principles have endured for decades, their practical application has become more precise as newer cases interpret what constitutes a “reasonable” decision.
Despite the stable legal framework, trustees now confront increasingly complex disputes within sectional title schemes. Issues ranging from pet ownership to home modifications have grown more contentious, yet the fundamental obligation—thoroughly evaluating each case—remains unchanged.
Conveyancing exams fail 96% of candidates
A separate legal examination crisis emerged in 2024, when the Legal Services Ombud’s report revealed alarmingly low pass rates for conveyancing qualifications. Only 4% of candidates passed Conveyancing Paper 1, and just 2% cleared Paper 2. The report rejected suggestions that candidates lacked preparation, noting even those with advanced degrees struggled. Instead, it identified flaws in the exam design, including vague questions, inconsistent expert evaluations, and a lack of transparency in grading.
Property law specialist Audrey Gwangwa criticized the exams for testing obscure legal areas rarely encountered in practice. Conveyancing expert Allen West compared the qualification’s demands to earning a Master’s degree, questioning whether this level of mastery aligns with the profession’s actual needs. The Ombud’s findings also highlighted the Legal Practice Council’s refusal to release exam memorandums, the official answer keys that would allow candidates to understand their mistakes. Post-exam review sessions, while held, provided only general insights rather than specific feedback.
The failure rates-with 96% of candidates failing-raise concerns about deterring aspiring conveyancers, particularly in rural or under-resourced communities where exam preparation may be limited. The Law Society of South Africa‘s 2026 AGM addressed this, emphasizing that professional sustainability depends on inclusivity. Without reforms, however, the exams may continue to act as a significant barrier.
Another correspondent questioned whether the exams’ difficulty stemmed from poor design rather than candidate shortcomings. The letter cited cases where high-scoring candidates, some achieving over 60%, failed due to unclear question phrasing or inconsistent expert interpretations. It suggested that the LPC’s refusal to disclose memorandums might stem from a desire to maintain exam rigor but at the cost of fairness. The writer proposed that publishing anonymized model answers or grading guidelines could help candidates understand expected responses.
