In a saga that has stretched more than a decade-and-a-half, the Supreme Court of Appeal has dealt a definitive blow to a Green Point flat owner’s plan to transform his modest apartment into a sprawling, double-storey residence.
Johannes Wessel Greeff, owner of a flat in Merriman Court, will not be extending his 88m² flat into the surrounding garden and common property, the court confirmed in a recent judgment.
The case has been as much about legal procedure as it has been about building and bricks. Greeff, the only owner at Merriman Court who has not expanded his unit, argued that he had historic approval to proceed, citing informal agreements, past nods from the body corporate, and meeting minutes dating back to 2007.
But the SCA decided against him, finding that in sectional title schemes, informal consent does not override statutory compliance.
The controversy began innocuously in 2007 when Greeff received an “in principle” approval to build a garage — basically a small nod from fellow owners in what was then a tightly knit scheme.
Over time, other owners extended their units. Some built out into common property areas including the roof, lobbies and adjacent voids. Greeff, citing fairness, wanted the same opportunity — only he asked for it on a much larger scale.
In 2017 he submitted plans that proposed expanding his flat by incorporating the exclusive-use garden and creating a double-storey extension with a flatlet and a wraparound veranda.
The body corporate convened an informal meeting to consider the plans. The minutes noted that the plans were formally accepted and that the chair would sign any necessary documents. But the SCA made clear that this informal acceptance carried no legal weight.
The drama escalated in 2019. Greeff’s revised plans were presented ahead of a special general meeting scheduled for July. Only Greeff, his architect, the scheme chairperson and a representative of the managing agent attended.
With no quorum of owners, the meeting could not proceed, and a second meeting in August allowed preliminary approval by the chairperson only. Fellow owners raised concerns about the scale, aesthetics and irregularities in the process, ultimately adjourning the matter without voting.
Feeling aggrieved, Greeff launched a high court application seeking declaratory and interdictory relief, claiming his plans were valid and should be approved.
This decision firstly is a sobering reminder to members of body corporates that they must follow the rules relating to meetings, proper notice and procedure. Secondly, it makes it abundantly clear that owners can’t simply make informal deals with each other with regard to the common property in a section title scheme.
— Anja Bothma, property lawyer
In 2021, the high court granted him relief, seemingly validating his claim. But the tide turned in 2024 when a full bench overturned the decision, finding that Greeff had failed to comply with the statutory requirements for extending his unit into the common property.
The SCA’s intervention cemented that ruling. Justice Elizabeth Baartman, writing for a unanimous court, stated that “the resolution taken at the informal meeting did not have any binding force, and the adoption of the minutes …did not meet the test for ratification”.
The court emphasised that the body corporate is legally obliged to act in accordance with the law and in the best interests of all owners, not merely based on informal consensus or historic approvals.
At the heart of the matter was the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and the Sectional Titles Act. The court held that under these statutes, any extension into common property requires a special resolution passed by the owners — a process designed to safeguard communal interests.
The SCA concluded that Greeff had not secured such a resolution, meaning his ambitious plans lacked any formal legal foundation and Greeff’s argument that the body corporate managed affairs informally fell flat.
“The body corporate is obliged to act in terms of the law and in the interest of its members,” the court noted. Informal nods, sketchy minutes and historical approvals were insufficient.
The legal battle has spanned nearly 15 years, consumed tens of thousands of rand in legal fees, and generated tension among neighbours. The trustees’ special levy to cover legal costs amounted to over R84,000, and sparked further disagreement as Greeff and another owner refused to contribute. The SCA upheld the levy, noting that the general meeting had approved it.
Property lawyer Anja Bothma told the Sunday Times that the SCA judgment served as a warning to all sectional title owners to follow correct procedures and a reminder that the laws in place are there to protect everyone.
“This decision firstly is a sobering reminder to members of body corporates that they must follow the rules relating to meetings, proper notice and procedure. Secondly, it makes it abundantly clear that owners can’t simply make informal deals with each other with regard to the common property in a section title scheme,” she said.
Greeff was contacted for comment but declined to respond.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.