How has short-term letting affected Blyde River Walk Homeowners Estate?
29 October 2025 Sarah’s Socials | Post 1
The case of Blyde River Walk Estate Homeowners Association and Others v Mabaso NO and Others 2025 ZAGPJHC 826 handed down in early September 2025, highlights the clashing interests at play in the short-term letting (“STL”) sector, particularly in communal property schemes. This case also raises the question of whether STL amounts to commercial use of a property.
Background
This case centres around the Blyde River Walk Homeowner’s Association (“The HOA”), a well-known lifestyle estate located in Pretoria East. The HOA was originally imagined by its developer as a secure, family oriented lifestyle estate featuring a crystal clear lagoon and other such amenities.
In reality, the security, amenities and location attracted not only families and long-term residents, but a small cohort of investment owners interested in short-term letting for holiday-makers.
Tensions began to rise as these two groups tried to co-exist within the HOA. New Conduct Rules were tabled and approved by members which restricted short-term letting to require pre-approval from the HOA and carried a hefty penalty for non-compliance.
Some concerns raised by permanent residents included, noise, safety and behavioural issues created by short-term letting guests. These are common arguments made by owners and permanent residents in community schemes that have a mix of permanent residents and short-term letting investment owners.
This restriction on STL spurred the faction of investment owners to band together and challenge the amended rules at the Community Schemes Ombud Service (“the CSOS”).
The Adjudicator ruled that the 2020 rule to limit STL was unreasonable, with regard to all owners and occupiers of the HOA. Furthermore, the Adjudicator found that the resolution to further amend the 2020 rules to completely ban STL was ourtright void. The Adjudicator then directed the HOA to approve a rule identical to the original 2018 rule in order to rectify the situation, essentially putting STL back on the table for investment owners.
Part of the Adjudicator’s reasoning relied on certain factual findings, including that the fact that the HOA’s design is closer to a holiday resort than a family-oriented lifestyle estate or that noise and behavioural issues cannot be attributed to STL guests alone.
In quick succession, upon receiving this decision, the HOA appeals the Adjudicator’s order to the High Court and the STL owners who made the complaint to the CSOS, have it made an order of court in terms of Section 56(2) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act (“CSOSA”).
The HOA, the developer and one of the concerned permanent resident owners then apply to have the Adjudicator’s order stayed, pending the finalisation of the appeal application. This is a legal process which essentially hits pause on the Adjudicator’s decision until their appeal had been decided on.
Does STL constitute residential or commercial use of property?
One of the issues of law brought into contention by the applicants, was that the Adjudicator, when finding that the HOA was in reality more of a holiday resort than a residential estate, failed to consider the appropriate land use legislation which they argue should be applied restrictively to exclude all uses which have not been explicitly named. This argument amounts to an assertation that the use of STL changes the use of a property from residential to commercial, which is an ongoing debate within the sector.
STL owners’ push back:
The STL owners argued under the CSOSA, the applicant is limited to questions of law when appealing an Adjudicator’s order and cannot challenge any findings of fact.
They argued that application to stay the Adjudicator’s order is too closely tied to the merits of the appeal application, which they say are fundamentally flawed.
The STL owners claim too many of the applicant’s grounds for appeal are based on the Adjudicator’s factual findings regarding the design of the HOA and the source of noise and behavioural disturbances.
Court’s Ruling on the Land Use Argument
The court ruled that the Adjudicator had a duty under the CSOSA to consider all applicable legislation, including the land use legislation as argued by the applicants, despite the fact that neither party mentioned the land use legislation in their submissions to the Adjudicator.
This finding is a tacitly opens the door to allow the argument that STL constitutes a change in land use from residential to commercial, which has far reaching implications.
What does this mean for us?
Unfortunately, the question of change in land use was not fully explored in this judgment, as the grounds for appeal will only be examined in depth when the appeal application itself is heard. This leaves us with more questions than answers about the STL industry and its regulation.
These questions will hopefully be answered when the appeal application is heard and the court is able to delve more deeply into the merits of the case.
About the author
Sarah Sydenham is a community schemes consultants at TVDM Consultants.
Sarah is also an admitted attorney, brings a well-rounded legal background and a passion for community schemes to her role.
After completing her LLB at Stellenbosch University, Sarah pursued an LLM in Public Law at the same institution, where she was supervised by the former Public Protector, Professor Thuli Madonsela. During the final year of her master's degree, she worked at the Law Faculty's Social Justice Centre, understanding the practical influence of the law in everyday life.
Learn more about Sarah Sydenham.
