MARKET REVIEW
Well, the year ended pretty much as it began: very little stock entering the market and consequently fewer sales, but with demand pushing price. In the last two months of 2025, under review, Propstats recorded just one sectional title sale in Claremont Upper.
NOVEMBER – NO SALES
DECEMBER – ONE SALE being at The Quadrant Retirement Block. Given the additional amenities to cater for the ‘more mature’ resident, a sale such as this is not truly representative of a general market trend upon which one can rely. A 90 square metre unit sold there for R2 550 000
THE YEAR IN REVIEW
For comparative purposes I have assessed the number of sectional sales that occurred in Claremont Upper during 2024 and then compared with number of sales for 2025.
2024
- Number of sectional title sales = 73.
- Average price paid per square metre = R31 334.00
2025
- Number of sectional title sales = 42.
- Average price paid per square metre = R33 871.00
While number of sales dropped significantly, the average price per square metre achieved in the 2025 year increased appreciably.
This increase in property values is due largely to the tension in the supply & demand dynamic.
In short – 2025 was a very good year to be a seller.
Little or no change in this market condition is foreseen in the year ahead.
INFORMATION CENTRE/ADVICE DESK – UP & RUNNING.
My WhatsApp channel continues to attract more followers and I am pleased to be engaging with many of you directly and personally.
Amongst other items of interest to the sectional title property owner is a hugely informative podcast (“The Property Guy”) that I conducted with Belinda Lewis – conveyancing director at STBB. This informal discussion deals with the implications of Capital Gains Tax: a most worthwhile listen.
Besides other, regular posts of interest, my monthly newsletter for your area is also available on the channel.
In order to access the Information Centre and/or to request advice, either click here (if reading this on your phone) or scan this QR code (if reading this on your laptop).
Please note that all communications are private and confidential and you have the option to opt out at any time.
FROM THE LEGAL DESK
THE ‘PET ISSUE’ – AGAIN!
I have, recently, raised the old, often contentious issue of Body Corporate Schemes permitting pets – or not.
All too often have I procured an otherwise excellent offer on a property only to have that house of cards collapse when the purchaser’s application (often a condition of the offer) to keep a pet is declined.
Recently, I have encountered and discussed the matter with a number of trustees at several sectional title schemes who have expressed the opinion that a blanket ban on pets is no longer permitted and that each application and each particular pet must be considered on its individual merits.
Upon investigation I have sourced a number of articles that say as much, citing (as support) a recently reported court judgment emanating out of KZN.
This is an important, often emotive subject and I believe it important that there be as much clarity as possible – for all interested parties.
Accordingly, I enlisted the assistance of attorney Genevieve Rousseau of STBB to fully investigate the current position as it applies to us in the Western Cape.
Herewith her findings and opinion:
I think the array of articles are actually misleading and likely relying on similar sources, or one another.
The new CSOS directive of this year provides that pets may be prohibited entirely, unless there are medical/assistance reasons for having the pet.
There are several articles published recently that all refer to the trustees being required to “apply their minds” etc, and say that CSOS has said that blanket prohibitions against pets are invalid.
But - the directive is very clear that you can prohibit pets.
I present the converse to you, that, for example, CSOS said all trustees must consider applications for pets based on certain criteria and may prohibit them in certain circumstances. But this is not what the directive says. It says, very clearly, “community schemes may prohibit pets entirely”.
There is a case, Govender v Naidoo, where the court found that the trustees relied heavily on a fixed principle of a “no pets” policy without adequately considering the individual merits of the applicants’ application. The court noted that strict adherence to a fixed rule amounts to a failure to exercise discretion reasonably, etc. So this implies that the trustees must consider an application for pets, however this is a KZN High Court judgment and would have no bearing here in the Western Cape unless a matter with similar facts makes its way to our High Court who determines the same.
Moreover, the prescribed STSMA Conduct Rules, owners or tenants require the written permission of the trustees to keep a pet. The trustees cannot unreasonably deny permission but must consider the circumstances of the request as well as the best interest of the complex. But these are only if the scheme is question actually relies on the prescribed conduct rules and has not amended or replaced them with new rules, which is often (usually) the case. Most BC rules now are suited to that specific scheme. In that instance, there can very well be a BC decision/rule to amend the STSMA rules and prohibit pets, unless they are medical/assistance pets.
So, there is certainly an argument to be made against a blanket prohibition, but that is where we are at now.
For the sake of informing buyers, schemes very much can prohibit pets. But I would always read what is set out in the management and conduct rules / constitution (if governed by an HOA)
Thank you very much, Genevieve.
We have therefore a definitive position – certainly for the time being.
