A new Supreme Court of Appeal ruling has brought welcome clarity to one of the most debated questions in community scheme law; whether disputes under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act (CSOS Act) must go to the Ombud first, or whether the High Court can still hear them directly.
In Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owners’ Association [2025] ZASCA 155, the Court held that the CSOS dispute resolution process does not replace the High Court’s jurisdiction. Instead, both forums coexist, giving parties a choice, though not without consequences on costs if the wrong forum is used.
The case arose after a developer, Parch Properties, tried to have its neighbouring development formally included in the Summervale Lifestyle Estate by amending the HOA’s constitution. When residents refused to approve the amendment, the developer went to the High Court for an order declaring the refusal “unreasonable” under section 39(4)(d) of the CSOS Act, a remedy normally associated with the Ombud. Opponents argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction and that the matter should have gone to CSOS instead.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It reaffirmed that South Africa’s High Courts retain their broad constitutional authority to hear any matter unless a statute explicitly removes that power. The CSOS Act, the judges found, was never intended to exclude the courts. Rather, it created an additional, accessible route for resolving community-scheme disputes (not a compulsory one).
Quoting earlier cases such as Thobejane and Metcash Trading, the Court emphasised a “strong presumption against ousting” the jurisdiction of superior courts. The Ombud’s role, it said, is to provide a cost effective and informal mechanism, particularly for routine governance or management disputes. But complex or precedent setting matters, such as constitutional amendments or ownership rights, may properly be dealt with by the High Court from the outset.
The ruling also cautioned that while parties are free to choose their forum, they must do so responsibly. Courts may use their discretion on costs to discourage unnecessary High Court applications that could have been resolved more efficiently by CSOS.
Legal experts view the decision as one of the most important CSOS judgments since the Ombud system was introduced in 2016. It effectively confirms a dual-path system: the Ombud for accessible, lower-cost adjudication, and the High Court for matters of greater complexity or significance.
The practical takeaway is clear. Litigants are not barred from approaching the High Court directly, but they must be able to justify why the case belongs there. The SCA has confirmed that access to CSOS expands options for dispute resolution; it does not close the courtroom door.
