South Africans living in estates have been warned that they cannot rely on old rules when challenging their homeowners’ association (HOA).
This was recently highlighted in a dispute involving the Zandspruit Bush and Aero Estate in 2025, which was heard at the Polokwane High Court.
Johlene Wasserman, Director of Community Schemes and Compliance at VDM Incorporated, said that the ruling centred on repealed planning schemes.
This primarily refers to the Maruleng Land-Use Scheme of 2008, which was replaced by the updated 2021 scheme.
The case started after a dispute in the Zandspruit Estate near Hoedspruit, where two homeowners challenged the estate’s HOA after it amended its rules in December 2018 to allow limited short-term rentals.
The homeowners argued that rentals shorter than one month broke the 2008 scheme and tried to reinstate a blanket ban.
When the matter reached the court, the legal framework had already undergone a shift.
“The 2008 scheme had been repealed and replaced by the 2021 scheme, which expressly allows short-term rentals,” said Wasserman.
The judge confirmed that this change was binding, as any ruling based on a repealed 2008 scheme would have no practical effect.
The court also stressed that it does not exist to decide abstract or outdated disputes. It pointed out that conflicts of this nature fall within the jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS).
The court said that the CSOS is better suited to handle internal rule changes and neighbour-to-neighbour disagreements.
With the application 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.
Why this matters
“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“Legal challenges must be grounded in current law, not repealed frameworks.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For HOAs, Wasserman noted that the decision offers reassurance that changes will not be overturned years later via outdated planning schemes.
For homeowners, it sends a warning that litigation must be carefully framed, timely, and strategically sound.
The principle was also echoed in a second 2025 judgement in the Olifantsfontein Residential Apartments (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg.
In this case, the Gauteng Local Division Court ruled that municipalities must apply tariff policies exactly as written, without adding conditions that do not exist.
“Further, the court found that the city had unlawfully added a requirement that only government-subsidised dwellings could qualify for the sewerage tariff subsidy.”
“This contradicted the plain wording of the budget and amounted to an unlawful administrative decision under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000.”
The city had changed how it applied the tariff without using the proper public process or formally updating the budget.
Due to this, the court ruled in favour of the property owner and confirmed that their building qualifies for a lower, subsidised rate.
Wasserman said that the rulings send a clear message that 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.
