A conflicted trustee stayed in the room for a decision he should have stepped back from — and that’s not even why the case was lost.

A Durban owner had a sliding gate application refused by trustees, one of whom was, at the time, under an interim protection order linked to alleged trespassing in her own garden. CSOS didn’t need to rule on that conflict to strike the decision down: the board simply couldn’t show a proper general meeting had ever been convened.

Two separate governance failures. Either one was enough to void the outcome.

Jannie Smit breaks down what Prescribed Management Rules 6(3), 14(3) and 30 require of trustees facing a personal conflict — and what “properly convened” actually means in practice.

When I first read the facts of this case, one detail immediately stood out.

A homeowner applied for permission to install a sliding gate in her exclusive-use garden. Her application remained with the trustees for months before it was eventually refused.

One of the trustees involved in that decision was, at the time, subject to an interim protection order arising from allegations that he had repeatedly trespassed in the very same garden.

It raises an obvious question: why was that trustee still involved in the decision?

A recent CSOS adjudication in Durban placed this uncomfortable situation under the spotlight. Although the adjudicator ultimately decided the matter on a separate procedural failure, the case offers an important reminder to every trustee and managing agent about conflicts of interest and proper decision-making.

“Disclose the conflict, leave the discussion, and do not vote.”

When a trustee has a personal interest
The principle is straightforward: a trustee should not participate in a matter in which they have a direct or indirect personal interest.

Prescribed Management Rule 6(3) states that a trustee with such an interest must not be present or play any part in the consideration or decision of that matter. PMR 14(3) also disqualifies a trustee from voting on a dispute or any other matter in which they have a direct or indirect personal interest.

This is not limited to financial interests.

A serious personal dispute between a trustee and an owner—particularly one involving legal proceedings or a protection order—may create precisely the kind of conflict that requires the trustee to step aside.

In my view, the safest and most responsible approach is simple: disclose the conflict, leave the discussion and do not vote.

This protects the owner, the trustee and the body corporate. It also protects the credibility of the decision itself.

Even where the remaining trustees believe the outcome would have been the same, that does not make the process acceptable. Good governance is not only about reaching what the board considers the right answer. It is also about reaching that answer through a fair, transparent and defensible process.

The meeting matters just as much as the decision
The conflict-of-interest question was not the only concern in this case.

The decision also affected the owner’s rights over an exclusive-use area. PMR 30 provides that certain structures or building improvements on an exclusive-use area may be approved by the body corporate through an ordinary resolution.

That requires a genuine resolution—not simply an informal discussion among trustees followed by a refusal letter.

If the legislation or the scheme’s rules require owners to vote, the matter must be placed before a properly convened and quorate meeting. Owners must receive the required notice and be given a real opportunity to consider and vote on the proposal.

A decision cannot be made procedurally sound simply by recording it afterwards.

What happened in the Durban dispute?
In an adjudication dated 22 June 2026, a Durban sectional-title owner successfully challenged her body corporate’s refusal to allow her to install a sliding gate in her exclusive-use garden.

According to the case presented to CSOS, the owner held a registered exclusive-use right dating back to 1986, which was later confirmed by a High Court order.

Among the grounds she raised was the alleged conflict involving one of the trustees. She argued that the trustee should not have participated because he was subject to an interim protection order arising from allegations of repeated trespassing in her garden.

The body corporate responded that the other trustees also supported the refusal. Its position was that removing the allegedly conflicted trustee from the process would not have changed the result.

The adjudicator did not ultimately have to decide the conflict-of-interest issue.

Instead, the refusal failed for a more fundamental reason: the trustees could not provide evidence that a proper general meeting had been convened or that the owners had been given an opportunity to vote as required.

The resolutions refusing the gate were therefore declared void.

That distinction is important. The adjudicator did not make a final finding on whether the trustee’s involvement invalidated the decision. However, the facts illustrate exactly why conflicts must be identified and dealt with before a board begins discussing the matter.

Practical lessons for trustees
I believe boards can avoid most of these problems by making a few basic governance habits part of every meeting:

• Include conflicts of interest as a standing agenda item.
• Ask trustees to disclose any personal, financial or legal interest before discussion begins.
• Require a conflicted trustee to leave the discussion and abstain from voting.
• Record the disclosure and recusal clearly in the minutes.
• Confirm whether the matter can be decided by trustees or must go to the members.
• Give the correct notice and hold a properly convened, quorate meeting when an owners’ resolution is required.
• Record the wording, date and result of every resolution.

These steps may feel administrative, but they are what make a decision defensible when it is later challenged.

An unrecorded recusal is extremely difficult to prove. An undated resolution immediately creates uncertainty. A decision reached through an informal exchange cannot be presented later as though a proper meeting took place.

How we approach this at Urban Property Management
At Urban Property Management, we encourage every scheme we manage to treat conflict disclosure as a standard part of the meeting process, not as something to be raised only when a dispute has already developed.

Where a trustee has a personal interest or an ongoing dispute with an owner, that interest should be disclosed and minuted. The trustee should then step away from that specific matter.

We also help boards establish whether a decision falls within the trustees’ authority or must be placed before the members. Where a vote by owners is required, we make sure the meeting, notice, quorum and resolution are handled correctly.

Good governance is not based on the assumption that trustees will act in bad faith. Most trustees are volunteers trying to do the right thing for their communities.

Good governance is about having a process strong enough to protect the scheme when relationships become strained, interests overlap or a decision is challenged.

The lesson from this Durban dispute is not complicated: Conflicts must be disclosed, conflicted trustees must step aside, and decisions must be taken by the right people through the right process.

If you are uncertain whether your scheme’s conflict-of-interest or meeting procedures would stand up to scrutiny, my team and I would be happy to have that conversation with you. Contact Us Today!

This article is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Every community scheme has its own circumstances and governance requirements. Trustees should obtain appropriate legal or professional advice before acting on a conflict of interest or determining the validity of a meeting or resolution.

Jannie Smith – Owner and Managing Director – Urban Property Management

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jannie Smit is the founder and Managing Director of Urban Property Management, a Pretoria-based Residential Community Management company built on one principle: every scheme deserves a managing agent who actually cares.

With deep experience across sectional title governance, residential community management, business planning, and stakeholder negotiation, Jannie leads a team that treats every trustee query, owner concern, and maintenance request as if it were their own. His approach is simple — be reachable, be honest, and get it right the first time.

When he isn’t helping trustees navigate reserve funds, AGMs, and CSOS compliance, he’s probably thinking about how to do it better.

🔗 Connect with Jannie on LinkedIn: Jannie Smit | LinkedIn

🌐 Learn more about our services:

Homeowners Association Management
Sectional Title Scheme Management
Property Developers
Compliance
Maintenance Management Services
Get a Quote

📞 012 004 3322 ·

💬 WhatsApp: 063 860 4850