In order to avoid nuisance, a lot of residential complexes have a 'no pets' rule. In fact, this is the general rule as prescribed by the standard Conduct Rules in terms of section 10(2)(b) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011, which governs sectional titles - also known as complexes. According to the rule, “an owner or occupier of a section must not … keep an animal, reptile or bird in a section or on the common property”. However, it is not all doom and gloom for pet lovers who wish to live in a complex.
The abovementioned rule goes further to state that pets will be allowed if there is written consent from the trustees. Such consent cannot be withheld unreasonably. However, the trustees can impose reasonable conditions with regard to the keeping of pets and they may withdraw their consent in the event that the conditions are not adhered to. The conditions may vary from controlling your pet in such a way that it does not become a nuisance to your neighbours, to the number of pets you can keep.
It is only in instances of a disability and a mental health condition, where an animal is reasonably required, that the consent by the trustees will be automatically deemed to have been granted. These are instances such as where the owner requires a guide, hearing or assistance dog or even an emotional support dog. However, even in such cases the trustees are probably entitled to impose reasonable conditions.
Any individual who feels that consent has been withheld unreasonably is entitled to approach the court for a declaratory order that the written consent of the trustees has been withheld unreasonably. This was the case in the matter of Body Corporate of the Laguna Ridge Scheme N0. 152/1987 v Dorse 1999(2) SA 512 (D). In this matter, the rules of the complex allowed pets subject to the consent of the trustees. However, it seemed that the trustees had a general policy to refuse to give consent. Therefore, the court held that when a board of trustees is considering whether they should grant consent they are ‘required to consider each case on its merits based on the facts relevant to the case under consideration’. The facts in this case were that “the dog did not bark, was carried whenever it left the section, and did not constitute a nuisance to the … neighbours”.
In conclusion, it can thus be said that the main question when it comes to keeping a pet in a complex is whether the pet would be a nuisance to the neighbours.
