Sectional Titles

Extension by EUAs only

Section 27(2) of the sectional Titles Act (the Act) permits the extension of a scheme by the creation of new EUAs by a Body Corporate. For this purpose a sectional plan of extension has to be approved by the SGO. Any EUAs so created vest in the BC.

Since it was amended in 2010 section 25(1) permits the extension of a scheme by the holder of a real right to extend by the creation of only EUAs. Any EUA so created will vest in the holder of the right to extend.

In order to create EUAs in terms of both sections it is necessary to have a sectional plan of extension approved by the SGO. When such a plan is approved by the surveyor General he does not indicate specifically whether the plan is intended for registration under one or other of the two sections.

My question is, is such a plan available to be registered under either section? I have been unable to obtain a definitive answer from the SGO. Because of the vesting the difference is significant. I currently have a sectional plan of extension of a scheme which defines only EUAs. It consist of only 1 sheet but is numbered “Sheet no 6 of 6”, which is a reference to the original section plan for the opening of the scheme which consisted of 5 sheets. If anybody can provide a reference to an extension of a scheme in the Cape Town registries area where a plan similar to what I have described was used for the registration of an extension of a scheme by EUAs only in terms of section 25(1) I would be most grateful and I am sure there are other conveyancers who will be usefully informed by such information.

Donald Moore
Guthrie Colananni

Reader Comments:

Allen West 12/09/2014:

There is a clear and unambiguous distinction between the reservation of exclusive use areas in terms of section 25(1) of the Sectional Title Act and a creation of exclusive use areas in terms of section 27(2) of the Sectional Titles Act. Where the provisions of section 25(1) are to be invoked a reservation in terms of section 25(1) is required and all the documents as provided for in section 25(2) must be lodged with the issue of the certificate of real right of extension. Where the provisions of section 27(2) are invoked the documents referred to in section 25(2) are not necessary. Furthermore the stringent requirements as per section 25 will not be applicable, i.e. meaning that the exclusive use areas do not have to be ceded to owners of sections within the twelve month period.

john obree 16/09/2014:

Before the Act was amended (Act 11 of 2010) to read ..."by addition of sections and exclusive use areas or by addition of exclusive use areas only" and amendments to Sect 25(9) providing for the inclusion of exclusive use areas only, the Registrar refused to register any plan which comprised only excusive use areas, (although there had been a few such registrations in previous years). So now these plans are again possible. The heading on these plans of extension MUST state that its a plan ito either Sect 25 or Sect 27, although the SG ST Manual has not yet been updated in this regard. Plans should be returned to the SG for such endorsement where omitted. There have only been one or two Sect 25 extensions approved in the last few years in the CT SG office

john obree 16/09/2014:

For an example of a Sect 25 plan (of exclusive use areas only ifo the developer) please see SG D41/2014 approved on 06/03/2014 by the SG:WC The sheets are numbered Sheet 7 to 9 of 9 Sheets since there is no Section to be registered and hence the Registrar cannot allocate a new SS number John Obree

Allen West 16/09/2014:

Thanks John for setting the record straight.

Allen West 17/09/2014:

John, regulation 25 (1) (b) is peremptory in that a distinctive number must be allocated to the new plan of extension irrespective of whether it includes sections or only exclusive use areas.

John Christie 18/09/2014:

Hi Allen and John, The unfortunate result of these distinctive numbers is that where there is a big sectional scheme one has each and every extension being allocated an entirely different number, which really is anomalous, and which leads to all kinds of confusion amongst lay persons, not to mention managing agents. It would have been much better to number the schemes like this: Phase one: SS 123/2009 Phase two: (irrespective of when registered) : SS123/2009(2) Phase three: (irrespective of when registered) : SS 123/2009(3) etc etc. These are distinctive numbers, and then at least there would have been some degree of uniformity and consistency. There are many schemes with identical names, and this leads to errors in the data section of the deeds registry when registered extensions are being captured. It also requires detailed historical searches to be done sometimes. This system would greatly simplify searches.

Leave a comment:

Security Picture (click to change)
Word shown in picture:
menu close

Search Articles