STO Forums


Type your search criteria above and click Search to search the forums.

To see if someone has already answered a query similar to yours, click the Search button above and search for terms related to your question.

Same Special Resolution second vote

By John Carstens on Mon, 04 Dec 2017 at 21:55

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear, our trustees!

We received notice of a SGM where special resolution #1 was going be put to the vote, over 30 days before the meeting, as prescribed by the STA.

48 hours before the meeting we received notice that special resolution #2 was also going to be voted on.

I protested at the meeting that although the trustees were able to shorten the notice time for urgent matters, this matter was not urgent (a capital project which would take months before implementation and cost R 254,000 which necessitated a special levy for 3 years for funding.

The treasurer insisted that voting took place.

The special resolution was NOT passed.

A few days later the trustees gave notice that another Special General Meeting was being planned to vote on the same resolution again.

Their reason, no proxies received from owners being overseas at the time, and with the trustees being comitted to obtain these proxies, the resolution would pass.

1. Is 48 hours reasonable to expect owners to research and vote on a R 254 000 non luxurious improvement? Should they have gone ahead?

2. How many bites of the cherry can they have to force their resolution through? I should imagine that they will keep going until it is passed.

What are the rules for repeating voting for the same resolution?

Is it allowed?

Thanks and Regards to all.


You must login to post a reply.

RE: Same Special Resolution second vote

Murray Bennett replied on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 at 20:50

1. No
2. As many as they like.
Repeat voting on the same resolution is permissible.

RE: RE: Same Special Resolution second vote

Frances Paton replied on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 at 09:34

Hi John
You referred to a “capital project” and a “non-luxurious improvement”, presumably being one and the same. The STSMA no longer uses the terms “luxurious” and “non-luxurious” - instead, PMR 29 refers to alterations and improvements to the common property that are “reasonably necessary” or “not reasonably necessary”. The latter require a unanimous resolution. However, PMR 29(2) permits the trustees to proceed with “reasonably necessary” alterations and improvements, provided that no such proposal can be implemented unless all members are given at least 30 days written notice of the proposal, containing the information set out in PMR 29(2). It is only if a member of the body corporate during that period in writing requests a general meeting to discuss the proposal that a special resolution adopted with or without amendment at a general meeting is required (i.e. it cannot be a special resolution obtained by round robin).
So you need, first, to determine whether or not the proposed capital project is “reasonably necessary”, in order to establish whether a unanimous or special resolution is required, and if it is reasonably necessary I would recommend that you request the general meeting referred to in PMR 29(2) immediately on receiving the proposal to proceed with the project.

Website Statistics
  • Forum Topics: 11482
  • Users: 20862