High Court sends a warning to homeowners and estates in South Africa

The High Court has sent a warning to homeowners and estates that courts will not enforce repealed planning schemes or outdated rules, ruling that only current law applies to disputes over estate rules and municipal charges.

In a landmark case in 2025, the Polokwane High Court dismissed a dispute within the Zandspruit Bush and Aero Estate.

VDM Incorporated’s Director of Community Schemes and Compliance, Johlene Wasserman, said this case made one thing clear – if the law has changed, the courts won’t enforce yesterday’s rules.

The case, which arose from a dispute in the Zandspruit Estate near Hoedspruit, centres on repealed planning schemes, specifically the Maruleng Land-Use Scheme of 2008, which was replaced by the updated 2021 scheme.

“Two homeowners challenged the estate’s homeowners’ association (HOA) after it amended its rules in December 2018 to allow limited short-term rentals,” Wasserman explained.

“They argued that rentals shorter than one month broke the 2008 scheme and tried to reinstate a blanket ban.”

However, Wasserman explained that by the time the matter reached the court, the legal framework had already shifted.

“The 2008 scheme had been repealed and replaced by the 2021 scheme, which expressly allows short-term rentals,” she said.

The acting judge in this case confirmed that the change was binding, adding that any ruling based on the repealed 2008 scheme would have no practical effect. The court also stressed that it does not exist to decide abstract or outdated disputes.

“It also pointed out that conflicts of this nature fall within the jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service, which is better suited to handle internal rule changes and neighbour-to-neighbour disagreements,” Wasserman said.

“The application was dismissed, the Zandspruit Estate HOA’s rule permitting short-term rentals remains valid, and the homeowners were ordered to pay costs, including the costs of two counsel.”

A clear message to estate residents, trustees, and practitioners

“This ruling makes it clear to estate residents, trustees, and practitioners that timing and context matter,” Wasserman said.

“Legal challenges must be grounded in current law, not repealed frameworks. Courts will not intervene where disputes have become moot due to legislative change.”

For HOAs, Wasserman said the decision offers reassurance that rule changes will not be overturned years later under outdated planning schemes.

For homeowners, the case serves as a reminder that litigation must be carefully framed, timely, and strategically sound.

The principle was echoed in a second 2025 judgment, in the case of Olifantsfontein Residential Apartments v City of Johannesburg.

“Here, the Gauteng Local Division Court ruled that municipalities must apply tariff policies exactly as written, without adding conditions that don’t exist,” Wasserman explained.

“Further, the court found that the city had unlawfully added a requirement – that only government-subsidised dwellings could qualify – to the sewerage tariff subsidy.”

Wasserman said this contradicted the plain wording of the budget and amounted to an unlawful administrative decision under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.

The city had changed how it applied the tariff without going through the proper public process or formally updating the budget.

“Because of that, the court ruled in favour of the property owner and confirmed that their building qualifies for the lower, subsidised rate,” she said.

“These judgments send a clear message – that the courts won’t uphold old rules or accept unlawful changes to current ones. Whether it’s estate rules or municipal charges, the law must be applied exactly as it stands today.”