During the l?st few years, much has been said in the local newspapers about Sectional Titles and most of what has been said was enough to scare most people from buying homes under Sectional Title. Admittedly Sectional Titles is a new innovation to the property market of South Africa because it is different from the normal situation whereby a person can now buy a section of a building whereas previously a person could only buy a plot of ground with or without a building on it. In other words, the block of flats of which each unit could only be rented, or in some cases in recent years, be "bought" on Blockshare basis (which will be discussed later), can now be individually bought as well as the owner now having a pro rata share in common property which consists of, inter alia, the passages, the roof, the grounds on which the building is situated, the swimming pool etc.

Thesis (LLM (Private Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The most important innovations of the revised German Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz which came into force on 1 July of 2007, concern the possiblity to amend parts of the constitution of the scheme (Gemeinschaftsordnung) by majority instead of unanimous resolution; the extension of the decision-making competence of sectional owners; the easier and more appropriate distinction between maintenance of and luxurious and non-luxurious improvements to the common property; the recognition that the body corporate has legal capacity to act in certain circumstances; the increase in the functions and powers of the professional manager (Verwalter); and the replacement of the procedure for non-contentious matters for the settlement of disputes by the ordinary civil court procedure. These predominantly valuable innovations raise the question in how far South African law could benefit from these amendments, and whether they could be used as a model for solving some of the unsatisfactory aspects of the South African sectional title law. The revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz now allows apartment owners to amend more provisions of the constitution by majority resolution. The harsh unanimity principle is in many contexts replaced by the majority principle and individual apartment owners are allowed to request an amendment of certain provisions of the constitution for important reasons. The Sectional Titles Act and the model management and conduct rules regulate the relationship between sectional owners in South Africa. Both the developer and the body corporate have the authority to supplement or amend the existing model rules by special rules. However, in comparison with the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz the management and conduct rules can only be amended by a unanimous or special resolution for management and conduct rules respectively and an individual owner is not allowed to request an amendment of a model rule on account of the unfair consequences suffered by him or her. An important advantage of the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz in comparison with section 32(4) of the Sectional Titles Act is furthermore that no written consent is required from the sectional owner who is adversely affected by an amendment of certain aspects of the participation quota. This requirement causes many problems. First, the circumstances in which an owner can be considered adversely affected have not been judicially determined. Second, the South African requirement is out of step with modern conditions, which witness the number of larger schemes increasing, because it allows one owner to block objectively necessary resolutions of the body corporate. The provision requiring the written consent of the adversely affected owner should therfore be repealed. The same applies to the general requirements for carrying out maintenance of and improvements to the common property. On closer analysis it becomes clear that the management rules contain no criteria to distinguish between maintenance and improvement measures or between luxurious and non-luxurious improvements. In final analysis these distinctions seem to depend on subjective rather than on objective criteria. By contrast the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz contains a clear objective distinction between the four categories of improvements to the common property. / GERMAN ABSTRACT: Seit dem 1. Juli 2007 gilt in Deutschland ein novelliertes Wohnungseigentumsgesetz. Die wichtigsten Neuerungen betreffen die Ermöglichung von Änderungen der Gemeinschaftsordnung nicht nur durch einstimmigen Beschluss der Wohnungseigentümer, die Erweiterung der Beschlusskompetenzen der Wohnungseigentümer, die Erleichterung der Durchführung baulicher Maßnahmen, die Gestaltung der Teilrechtsfähigkeit der Eigentümergemeinschaft und die Festlegung der erweiterten Rechte und Pflichten des Verwalters sowie die Überleitung des Verfahrens der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit in die Zivilprozessordnung. Die überwiegende Zahl der grundsätzlich zu begrüßenden Neuregelungen gibt auch für das südafrikanische Recht wertvolle Denkanstöße zu der Frage, ob eine Novellierung des Sectional Titles Act im Sinne der Neuregelungen des WEG eine Möglichkeit wäre, bestehende „Ungereimtheiten“ und Probleme zwischen den Wohnungseigentümern und im Wohnungseigentumskomplex in Südafrika besser lösen zu können. Im neuen novellierten WEG sind mehr als bislang Mehrheitsentscheidungen der Wohnungseigentümer zulässig. Statt des starren Einstimmigkeitsprinzips gilt nun oftmals das Mehrheitsprinzip. Zudem ist es auch dem einzelnen Wohnungseigentümer möglich, eine Änderung einer Vereinbarung zu verlangen, sofern ein Festhalten an einer geltenden Regelung aus schwerwiegenden Gründen unter Berücksichtigung aller Umstände des Einzelfalles, unbillig erscheint. Gesetzliche Regelungen, welche das Gemeinschaftsverhältnis in Südafrika ordnen, sind im Sectional Titles Act selbst und in den management und conduct rules der Annexure 8 und 9 des Sectional Titles Act enthalten. Zudem hat sowohl der developer als auch die Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft (body corporate) die Befugnis, die Rechte, Pflichten und Nutzungsrechte der Wohnungseigentümer in sogenannten „special rules“ selbst festzulegen. Im Vergleich zu den Regelungen des novellierten WEG ist es für Wohnungseigentümer in Südafrika jedoch schwerer, eine Änderung solcher Regelungen herbeizuführen. Wollen die Wohnungseigentümer von den Regelungen der management oder conduct Rules abweichen, können sie dies bezüglich der management rules nur durch einheitlichen Beschluss (resolution) und hinsichtlich der conduct rules mittels eines Beschlusses mit 75%er Mehrheit (special resolution). Ein individueller Anspruch des einzelnen Wohnungseigentümers auf Änderung, Ergänzung oder Ersetzung der rules bei Unbilligkeit besteht nicht. Ein gewichtiger Vorteil der Neuregelung des § 16 Abs. 3 WEG im Vergleich zu Artikel 32(4) des Sectional Titles Act ist zudem, dass es in Deutschland keiner schriftlichen Zustimmung des von der Entscheidung negativ betroffenen Wohnungseigentümers bedarf. Eine Änderung der participation quota hinsichtlich des Kostenverteilungsschlüssels ist nur möglich, wenn ein von der Entscheidung negativ betroffener Wohnungseigentümer seine schriftliche Zustimmung erteilt. Wann eine solche negative Betroffenheit („adversely affected“) letztlich vorliegt, ist zum einen nicht abschließend geklärt. Zum anderen ist gerade unter der Prämisse immer größerer werdender sectional titles schemes nicht mehr zeitgemäß, einem einzelnen Wohnungseigentümer die Möglichkeit zu geben, objektiv notwendige Entscheidungen der body corporate zu blockieren. Das Erfordernis der Zustimmungsbedürftigkeit eines negativ betroffenen Wohnungseigentümers sollte daher aufgegeben werden. Gleiches gilt für die generelle Zulässigkeit von baulichen Veränderungen. Bei genauerer Analyse des südafrikanischen Rechts wird zudem klar, dass in den Management Rules nicht definiert ist, was unter Verbesserungen, d.h. unter „improvements to the common property“ zu verstehen ist oder wie im Einzelfall zwischen luxuriösen und nicht-luxuriösen Aufwendungen zu unterscheiden ist, da es letztlich von der subjektiven Betrachtungsweise Einzelner abhängt. Das novellierte WEG enthält im Vergleich dazu eine klarere objektive Begriffsabgrenzung der vier Kategorien baulicher Maßnahmen. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die belangrikste veranderings aangebring deur die wysiging van die Duitse Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz wat op 1Julie 2007 in werking getree het, is die volgende: die wysiging van die reëls van die skema (Gemeinschaftsordnung) deur middel van ‘n meerderheidsbesluit in plaas van ‘n eenparige besluit; die uitbreiding van die besluitnemingsbevoegdhede van deeleienaars, die helder en meer gepaste vereistes vir die aanbring van verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom, die erkenning van die regsbevoegdheid van die regspersoon in sekere gevalle, die uitbreiding van die bevoegdhede van die professionele bestuurder en die vervanging van die informele geskilbeslegtingsprosedure deur die gewone hofprosedure. Hierdie veranderinge laat die vraag ontstaan in hoeverre die Suid-Afrikaanse reg voordeel kan trek uit hierdie wysigings en in hoeverre die veranderings as model kan dien vir wysiging van onbevredigende aspekte van die Wet op Deeltitels. Die gewysigde Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz laat deeleienaars tans toe om meer bepalings van die model reëls deur meerderheidsbesluit te verander. Die streng eenparigheidsbeginsel word in meerdere verbande deur die meerderheidsbeginsel vervang en deeleienaars word in sekere gevalle selfs toegelaat om aansoek te doen vir die wysiging van sommige bepalings op grond van ‘n geldige rede. Die Wet op Deeltitels en die model bestuurs- en gedragsreëls reguleer die regsverhouding tussen deeleienaars. In teenstelling met die gewysidge Duitse wet kan die die regspersoon die bestuursreëls slegs deur middel van ‘n eenparige besluit en die gedragsreëls deur middel van ‘n spesiale besluit verander en ‘n deeleienaar word nie toegelaat om ‘n verandering van die reëls aan te vra op grond van onregverdige benadeling nie. ‘n Belangrike voordeel van die gewysigde Duitse wet in vergelyking met artikel 32(4) van die Wet op Deeltitels is verder dat die skriftelike toestemming van ‘n deeleienaar wat deur die wysiging van sekere aspekte van die deelnemingkwota benadeel word, nie verkry hoef te word nie. Dit is ‘n groot verbetering. Eerstens is dit moeilik om te bepaal in watter omstandighede ‘n deeleienaar se regte deur die wysiging van die deelnemingskwota benadeel word. Tweedens is die Suid-Afrikaanse bepaling uit pas met moderne ontwikkelings waar ‘n deeleienaar in groot deeltitleontwikkelings toegelaat word om objektief redelike besluite van die regspersoon te blokkeer. Hierdie bepaling van die Wet op Deeltitels moet dus herroep word. Dieselfde geld vir die vereistes met betrekking tot die onderhoud van en verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom in die Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing. Op die keper beskou bevat die bestuursreëls geen geskikte riglyne om tussen die onderhoud van, en luukse en nieluukse verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom te onderskei nie. Die onderskeiding berus oënskynlik op subjektiewe eerder as objektiewe oorwegings. Daarenteen bevat die gewysigde Duitse Wet helder, objektiewe kriteria om onderhoud en vier soorte verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom te onderskei.

Thesis (LLM )-- University of Stellenbosch, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis discusses the efficacy of procedures involving communal participation in the management of land by communal property associations, and how this contributes to the promotion of security of tenure as envisaged by the South African Land Reform programme. The Communal Property Associations Act 28 of 1996 (CPA Act) is aimed at regulating communal living arrangements to create security of tenure for its respective landholders. However, the general opinion of commentators in the land reform sector has continued to be that communal property institutions are ineffective and generally fail. Many assert that problems experienced are symptoms of a wider weakness relating to the institutional design of the juristic person, its regulation and the support it receives. To determine the strength of this assertion, the concept and conditions of security of tenure in South African law, and the obstacles hampering it, are investigated. Security of tenure is especially important as it provides a foundation from which land holders can exercise their rights productively. This is followed by an overview of the existing legal mechanisms for communal living arrangements that are similar to the arrangements catered for in the CPA Act. One of these arrangements, namely the Sectional Titles Act is used to compare mechanisms similar to the establishment and management procedures in the CPA Act. The main conclusion regarding establishment procedures is that many of the provisions of the CPA Act are not being implemented properly. While some institutional problems exist and must be addressed, negotiation with and guidance by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform are necessary to overcome such problems. An inadequate establishment process will only lead to problems and conflict in the management phase that could hamper security of tenure. Communal property associations are managed by an organisation structure comprising of a juristic person, a committee and the community. The thesis shows that committee members often lack the necessary training to fulfil their duties adequately. The CPA Act also allow communal property associations too much discretion in allocating powers and functions of the committee that can lead to paralysis in decision-making processes. The Department Rural Development and Land Reform has extensive powers to monitor and intervene in matters of the association if problems exist, but in practice such measures are not resorted to. These problems create dysfunction in many communal property associations. While the CPA Act can provide security of tenure for communities, the most significant obstacle is the lack of support from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform in implementing the provisions of the CPA Act. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis handel oor die doeltreffendheid van die prosedures rondom die deelname van gemeenskappe aan die bestuur van grond in gemeenskaplike eiendomsverenigings, en hoe dit bydra tot die bevordering van die onaantasbaarheid van grondregte, soos beoog deur die Suid-Afrikaanse grondhervormingsprogram. Die Communal Property Associations Act 28 of 1996 (CPA Wet) het ten doel om gemeenskaplike bewoning van grond te reguleer ten einde om sekerheid vir houers van grond in die hand te werk. Die heersende mening van kommentatore in die grondhervormingsektor is nietemin nog steeds dat gemeenskaplike eiendomsinstellings ondoeltreffend is, en oor die algemeen misluk. Verskeie kommentatore doen aan die hand dat die heersende probleme simptome is van onderliggende tekortkominge in die wyse waarop die regspersoon saamgestel word en hoe dit gereguleer en ondersteun word. Ten einde hierdie opvatting te deurgrond, word daar in hierdie tesis gekyk na die omstandighede waaronder onaantasbaarheid van grondregte bewerkstellig kan word in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg, en na die struikelblokke wat bestaan om heirdie doel te bereik. Onaantasbaarheid van grondregte is belangrik, veral omdat dit die basis is waarop houers van grond in staat gestel word om hul regte produktief uit te oefen. Hierna volg ‘n oorsig van die bestaande regsmeganismes vir gemeenskaplike bewoning van grond, wat soortgelyk is aan dié van die CPA Wet. Een sodanige opset is die Deeltitelswet, wat gebruik word om soortgelyke meganismes vir die totstandkoming van en die bestuursprosedures van die CPA Wet te vergelyk. Die gevolgtrekking met betrekking tot totstandkomingsprosedures is dat die bepalings van die CPA Wet nie behoorlik in werking gestel is nie. Benewens die institusionele probleme wat aangespreek moet word, is onderhandeling met en leiding deur die Departement van Landelike Ontwikkeling en Grondhervorming nodig, om bestaande struikelblokke uit die weg te ruim. ‘n Ontoereikende totstandkomingsproses sal slegs lei tot verdere probleme en geskille in die latere bestuur van die skema wanneer die skema bestuur moet word. Dit werk onsekerheid m.b.t. die grondregte in die hand. Die bestuurstruktuur van gemeenskaplike eiendomsverenigings bestaan uit ‘n regspersoon, ‘n komitee en die gemeenskap. Die tesis dui aan dat komiteelede dikwels nie voldoende opgelei is om hul funksies behoorlik te vervul nie. Die CPA Wet maak ook voorsiening vir te veel diskresionêre begoegdhede in die akte van oprigting en die bepalings omtrent die funksies van die komitee, wat die besluitnemingsproses kan lamlê. Die Departement van Plaaslike Ontwikkeling en Grondhervorming het verreikende magte m.b.t monitering en intervensie in die sake van die verenigings, waar probleme bestaan. In die praktyk word hierdie bevoegdhede egter nie aangewend soos beoog nie. Die probleme versoorsaak dat gemeenkskaplike eiendomsverenigings nie na behore funksioneer nie. Die wetsbepalings kan onaantasbaarheid van grondregte vir gemeenskappe in die hand werk, maar die grootste struikelblok is die behoorlike implementering van die wetsbepalings.

Thesis (LLD (Private Law))--Stellenbosch University, 2008. / The objective of this study is to examine the significance of introducing and strengthening apartment ownership in China. The research aims to explore and scrutinize various apartment ownership options from selected jurisdictions in order to provide a framework for similar legislation in China. Hence, the research seeks to provide a legislative framework for a uniform condominium statute by closely examining the South African Sectional Titles Act and the American Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. This comparative study will help to establish a uniform condominium statute suitable to the Chinese national character and compatible with the pace of the country’s economic development. The thesis is organized into seven chapters. The first chapter explains the research topic, theoretical basis of the thesis, and research methodology. Moreover, in this chapter the historical background and status quo of Chinese condominium institution are also illustrated. Following this introduction, Chapter Two explores the theoretical structure of condominium ownership. It depicts the legislative innovation arising from its sui generis features and explains the objects of condominium ownership on the basis of its unique definition. In Chapter Three, a wide spectrum of provisions is identified pertaining to the creation of condominium in China with reference to South African and American acts. Specifically, it observes the requirements for land intended for subdivision and the buildings that comprise a condominium project. It is highlighted that a condominium’s constitutive document is unregulated in China. Moreover, the characteristic Chinese land registration procedure is also presented. Chapter Four demonstrates the significance of the participation quota and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of different participation quota calculating methods. Chapter Five emphasizes that inherent in the condominium living is the interdependence of interests among unit owners. Consequently, this chapter focuses on condominium owners’ use and enjoyment of their apartments and the common property. Chapter Six elaborates on condominium management. This chapter examines the management body, the general meeting, the executive council and the managing agent. It concludes that having a well-structured management body is essential since a condominium community cannot function efficiently without a management association to represent all of the owners and to handle day-to-day operations. The last chapter concludes that China needs to enact a uniform condominium to protect private interests within the condominium context.

According to the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986, levies are assigned according to the size of a unit, in other words a unit’s participation quota. These levies are used to finance a complex’s insurance, common property electricity and water, lift maintenance, audit fees, management agent fees, salaries and wages, security, swimming pool expenses and general building maintenance. According to the Traditional Costing System, indirect costs are allocated based on a single cost actual expenses over a year are dissected. A regression and correlation analysis was done on the relationship between costs, participation quota and levies. The contribution of the study is that it empirically determines the behaviour of cost items in order to allocate indirect costs more accurately. Consequently, this will result in improved reasonability and will eliminate the cross-subsidisation of units. The objectives were reached as follows: The first objective was reached when it was proved through empirical studies that the Sectional Title is not fair when it states that the allocation of levies must be according to floor space. The second objective was reached when both participation quota and units per complex were identified as cost drivers for each cost item. The third objective was reached by allocating the levy on a 50 percent base according to units and a 50 percent base according to the total area. This could be refined by each complex according to the unique need of the complex. driver. However, various indirect costs are not necessarily subject to this single cost driver. In practice, it has been proven that high volume products are proportionally taxed with indirect costs when compared to low volume products. In many complexes, owners with larger units are of the opinion that their larger units are subsidising those owners with smaller units. In contrast to the traditional costing system, activity-based costing recognises that indirect costs can also be assigned by use of multiple cost drivers. Since these multiple cost drivers – which affect the way costs are assigned – can be identified, indirect costs are assigned more accurately. This study investigates the current method of cost allocation, whereby costs are assigned via participation quota, and makes suggestions on how these costs can be assigned on a more accurate and fair basis in practice. The goal of this study is to challenge the reasonability of the Sectional Titles Act. The objectives of the dissertation are firstly, to determine the cost behaviour of various cost items and whether the participation quota is a fair cost driver for determining the levies that are to be paid; secondly, it investigates alternative cost drivers that will be more applicable to certain cost items; thirdly, to suggest a cost formula to replace the current cost method, that being the allocation of indirect costs via participation quota. Empirical methods have been used in the research. The empirical research was performed using data obtained from ANGOR Property Specialists (Pty) Ltd’s database. A sample of 113 complexes was extracted from the database of which the / Thesis (M.Com. (Management Accountancy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011

According to the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986, levies are assigned according to the size of a unit, in other words a unit’s participation quota. These levies are used to finance a complex’s insurance, common property electricity and water, lift maintenance, audit fees, management agent fees, salaries and wages, security, swimming pool expenses and general building maintenance. According to the Traditional Costing System, indirect costs are allocated based on a single cost actual expenses over a year are dissected. A regression and correlation analysis was done on the relationship between costs, participation quota and levies. The contribution of the study is that it empirically determines the behaviour of cost items in order to allocate indirect costs more accurately. Consequently, this will result in improved reasonability and will eliminate the cross-subsidisation of units. The objectives were reached as follows: The first objective was reached when it was proved through empirical studies that the Sectional Title is not fair when it states that the allocation of levies must be according to floor space. The second objective was reached when both participation quota and units per complex were identified as cost drivers for each cost item. The third objective was reached by allocating the levy on a 50 percent base according to units and a 50 percent base according to the total area. This could be refined by each complex according to the unique need of the complex. driver. However, various indirect costs are not necessarily subject to this single cost driver. In practice, it has been proven that high volume products are proportionally taxed with indirect costs when compared to low volume products. In many complexes, owners with larger units are of the opinion that their larger units are subsidising those owners with smaller units. In contrast to the traditional costing system, activity-based costing recognises that indirect costs can also be assigned by use of multiple cost drivers. Since these multiple cost drivers – which affect the way costs are assigned – can be identified, indirect costs are assigned more accurately. This study investigates the current method of cost allocation, whereby costs are assigned via participation quota, and makes suggestions on how these costs can be assigned on a more accurate and fair basis in practice. The goal of this study is to challenge the reasonability of the Sectional Titles Act. The objectives of the dissertation are firstly, to determine the cost behaviour of various cost items and whether the participation quota is a fair cost driver for determining the levies that are to be paid; secondly, it investigates alternative cost drivers that will be more applicable to certain cost items; thirdly, to suggest a cost formula to replace the current cost method, that being the allocation of indirect costs via participation quota. Empirical methods have been used in the research. The empirical research was performed using data obtained from ANGOR Property Specialists (Pty) Ltd’s database. A sample of 113 complexes was extracted from the database of which the / Thesis (M.Com. (Management Accountancy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011