Power in tribunal’s hands
Body has responsibility to decide whether there is a dispute relating to an unfair practice
WHEN a complaint is lodged with the Rental Housing Tribunal, in terms of Section 13 of the Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 the tribunal through its administrative process needs to establish if there is a dispute relating to an unfair practice.
Thereafter, the respondent and complainant are informed of mediation or a hearing. If it is a hearing, parties and witnesses present their sides by giving evidence under oath or by making an affirmation. At the end of the hearing, the tribunal is required to “make such a ruling as it may consider just and fair in the circumstances”.
A ruling of the tribunal is not only the same as a magistrate’s court judgment, but it is also enforced in terms of the Magistrate’s Courts Act (Act No 32 of 1944).
Unlike magistrate’s court judgments, though, a tribunal’s ruling cannot be appealed in the high court. Its ruling is therefore momentous for most people.
Section 13(4)(c) states in regard to the tribunal’s powers: make any other ruling that is just and fair to terminate any unfair practice, including, without detracting from the generality of the aforegoing, a ruling to discontinue: (i) overcrowding.
(ii) unacceptable living conditions. (iii) exploitative rentals.
(iv) lack of maintenance.
The tribunal is under statutory duty to terminate an unfair practice since the Rental Housing Act is an act of Parliament. It is a legislation that “is enacted in pursuance of the state’s constitutional mandate” (Kendall Property Investments v Rutgers (2005) 4 All SA 61[C]).
A ruling or judgment must provide relief to the aggrieved party, the very reason for lodging a complaint and parties ought to know what it expected of them. The ruling or judgment must be just and equitable and must be decisive. who are appointed to bodies whose decisions are significant, cannot escape public scrutiny. Let us take the case of tenants who were turned away from the tribunal, not being able to lodge a complaint. Their complaint against their new landlord related to deplorable living conditions and unfair rental increases.
Almost two years earlier, they lodged a similar complaint and the ruling or judgment failed to terminate the unfair practice.
The unanimous ruling of the tribunal was that the tenants as respondents led evidence that the property contained about 18 rooms where each tenant paid R220, including lights and water, to the complainant’s family who were the landlords.
The ruling continued: “The tenants were requested in February to pay R300 a month as according to them the landlord had a R6 000 water bill to pay. The tenants refused to pay the new rental as they complained that the landlord refused to repair the roofs that were leaking.
An inspector’s report revealed that the roof was in a bad condition and the report the property was inhabitable.
Since the parties were unable to agree on either a rental increase or the repairs the tribunal, in relying on the report, ruled that the property was unhabitable.
This was a hearing not a mediation. It is during mediation that parties are given the opportunity to agree or to reach a compromise, failing which the matter is referred for a hearing.
Sayed Iqbal Mohamed is the chairperson of the organisation of civic rights and deputy chairperson of the KwaZuluNatal Rental Housing Tribunal. He writes in his personal capacity. For advice, contact Pretty Gumede or Loshni Naidoo on 031 304 6451 or email pretty@ocr.org.za or loshni@ocr.org.za