Cannabis Use in Sectional Title Schemes - Balancing Personal Freedom and Community Living
December 3, 2025
People Management, Sectional Title Management
By Auren Freitas dos Santos
When the Constitutional Court handed down its landmark judgment on 18 September 2018 in Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Prince, it opened the door to the private, adult use of cannabis in South Africa. The ruling was widely celebrated as a victory for personal autonomy and privacy. But six years later—after the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act 7 of 2024 (“the Cannabis Act”) came into force on 3 June 2024—the legal landscape is no longer as simple as the popular narrative suggests.
In its Consolidated Practice Directive, the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) has taken the position that a rule restricting the use or cultivation of cannabis inside an owner’s private unit is “undesirable.” Their view, presumably anchored in the 2018 Prince judgment, is that adults in a sectional title scheme may use or possess cannabis in private for personal consumption.
Yet this position appears to rest on an incomplete interpretation of the law, particularly now that Parliament has enacted detailed statutory limits governing cannabis use—and, crucially, limits on what “private” really means.
The Cannabis Act adds important qualifications that materially affect sectional title living, and it is here that the tension becomes impossible to ignore.
The Cannabis Act Gives a Right—And Immediately Limits It
Section 2(1) of the Cannabis Act confirms the basic right:
“An adult person may use or possess cannabis… in a private place for a private purpose.”
This mirrors the Constitutional Court’s wording.
But then the Cannabis Act does something Prince did not: it places explicit statutory limitations on how this right may be exercised.
Section 2(2) of the Cannabis Act states that an adult may not use cannabis in a private place—
- in the presence of a child or non-consenting adult; or
- within a reasonable distance of any window, ventilation inlet, doorway or entrance to another place; or
- where persons congregate in close proximity and where the smoke is likely to cause a disturbance or nuisance.
This expands the analysis dramatically. The question is no longer merely whether a person is inside their “private property”—it is whether the effect of their cannabis use intrudes into a shared environment.
And that is exactly the challenge in sectional title schemes.
Is a Sectional Title Scheme a “Public Place”?
The Cannabis Act defines a public place as:
“any place to which the public has right of access.”
At first glance, one might assume that sectional title common property is private. After all, access is often controlled through security or biometrics.
But does the public have a “right of access”?
This is where the analysis becomes more nuanced.
In a typical suburban freestanding house, the answer is obvious: no.
But sectional title schemes are not walled-off islands. They are high-density residential environments where:
- deliveries occur daily,
- contractors come and go,
- visitors, domestic workers, contractors and service providers enter lawfully, and
- dozens or even hundreds of unrelated people co-exist in shared vertical space.
In reality, sectional title schemes function much more like micro-communities than private households. Their common areas—lobbies, hallways, staircases, lifts, parking garages—are not “public” in the municipal sense, but they are places to which a broad category of people have legitimate access by virtue of their occupancy or relationship to the residents.
And the definition in the Cannabis Act is deliberately broad. It does not say “general public.” It says the public—any group of people who have a recognised right of access. By this interpretation, a sectional title scheme fits squarely into the statutory definition of a “public place.”
This matters, because the Cannabis Act prohibits the use of cannabis in a public place.
So the question becomes: can cannabis be smoked in a unit if the smoke permeates into a space legally defined as public?
The Cannabis Act seems to answer: no.
High-Density Living Means High Potential for Nuisance
Even if one accepts that a unit is a private place, cannabis use becomes unlawful the moment its effects spill beyond that private domain.
Section 2(2)(b)(i) prohibits use within a “reasonable distance” of any window, ventilation inlet, doorway or entrance into another place.
In a freestanding home, this is easily controlled.
In an apartment block, it is nearly impossible.
Cannabis smoke travels through bathroom extractor fans, across balconies, under doors, up stairwells, and through open windows of adjacent units. High-density living magnifies the impact.
And because sectional title schemes involve unrelated people living in unavoidable proximity, the chance of a “disturbance or nuisance” is dramatically higher.
Section 2(2)(b)(ii) goes even further by prohibiting use in a private place that forms part of any public place where persons congregate within close proximity of one another and where the smoke is likely to cause a disturbance or nuisance to any person at that place. This is the very nature of a sectional title scheme.
To put it plainly: what may be lawful in a suburban backyard can be unlawful in a 10-storey building.
Where Does This Leave Trustees?
Trustees should not assume that cannabis use in a unit is automatically lawful simply because it occurs “in private.” Instead, they should consider:
- Is the smoke affecting a child or non-consenting adult?
- Is it entering another unit through doors, windows or ventilation?
- Is it detectable in a corridor, lift lobby or stairwell?
- Is it causing a disturbance or nuisance to others?
If the answer to any of these is yes, the activity may be:
- a breach of the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act,
- a breach of the nuisance provisions of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act,
- grounds for a conduct rule prohibition, and
- actionable through CSOS or the Courts.
The legal right to use cannabis ends where your neighbour’s right to peaceful undisturbed enjoyment begins.
Conclusion
The debate around cannabis use in sectional title schemes requires fresh thinking. Privacy is a constitutional right, but it is not absolute—and the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act has drawn new boundaries that must be respected.
Sectional title schemes are uniquely vulnerable to cannabis-related disputes because of their density and interconnected architecture. Public policy must therefore reflect the real challenges experienced at ground level.
It is time to move past oversimplified interpretations of the Prince judgment and acknowledge the layered statutory limits introduced by the Cannabis Act. Trustees and managing agents should not be made to feel that they are overriding constitutional rights when they enforce nuisance rules; on the contrary, they may be enforcing statutory obligations.
In high-density living environments, the real legal question is not whether an adult may smoke cannabis in their unit, but whether doing so infringes on the rights of those around them.
And on that question, the Cannabis Act is clear: no one has the right to smoke cannabis in a way that is likely to affect others.
Courtesy: The Advisory
If you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us at [email protected] for a no-obligation quote.
Specialist Community Scheme Attorney (LLB, LLM), Auren Freitas dos Santos, is a Director of The Advisory, a boutique consultancy specialising exclusively in community schemes law. Reach out to him via email at [email protected] for a no-obligation quote to discuss this topic in more detail.
Tags: Body Corporate, Cannabis Use, Sectional Title Schemes
