Living in a sectional title complex or estate often comes with rules designed to balance the rights of all residents. One of the most debated topics is whether pets are allowed - and under what conditions. Community Schemes (such as sectional titles and homeowners’ associations) are entitled to make rules, but those rules must always be reasonable and applied fairly. South African courts and tribunals have, on more than one occasion, stepped in where decisions about pets went too far - or where a resident acted unreasonably.
The Legal Framework
The Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act (STSMA) and the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act (CSOS Act) govern how rules are made and enforced in community schemes. The key principle? Rules must be reasonable and cannot infringe on owners’ and occupiers’ rights more than necessary to achieve the scheme’s legitimate objectives (like safety, harmony, or property value).
When Schemes Have Been Unreasonable
In several cases, schemes attempted to enforce blanket bans on pets, regardless of circumstances. Courts and the CSOS have found such rules to be unreasonable.
-
Body Corporate v Singh (Durban High Court) – A blanket prohibition on pets was deemed unlawful. The court held that each application for keeping a pet must be considered on its merits.
-
Jansen van Vuuren v Crescentwood Estate – The court confirmed that rules cannot be arbitrary or disproportionate. If a small, well-behaved pet poses no disturbance, refusing permission simply for the sake of a blanket policy may be struck down.
The principle: Schemes may regulate pets, but they cannot simply prohibit them altogether without considering reasonableness and individual circumstances.
When Residents Have Been Unreasonable
On the other hand, residents are not free to ignore the scheme’s rules. Even if you are allowed to keep a pet, you must respect the rights of your neighbours.
Cases have shown:
-
Owners who let dogs bark constantly, disturbing others, were found to be unreasonable;
-
Keeping exotic or aggressive animals in close community settings has been restricted for safety reasons; and
-
In Mount Edgecombe Country Club Estate v Singh, the court emphasised that where rules are clearly reasonable (such as leash requirements), residents cannot simply disregard them because they disagree.
The principle: Residents must exercise their rights responsibly. Owning a pet in a community scheme is not absolute - it comes with duties.
Striking the Balance
Ultimately, disputes about pets in community schemes come down to reasonableness on both sides:
-
Schemes must apply rules fairly, considering each case and avoiding absolute bans
-
Residents must ensure their pets do not cause nuisance, disturbance, or safety concerns
Conclusion
If you’re in a community scheme, remember: the law expects balance. Schemes cannot make arbitrary rules, but residents must also act responsibly. When disagreements arise, the CSOS offers a mechanism to resolve disputes without resorting to lengthy litigation.
At VDM Attorneys, we assist community schemes, trustees, and residents in navigating these complex issues - ensuring rules are lawful, fair, and enforceable, while helping residents understand their rights and responsibilities.