La Vallee Body Corporate v N Buhle

La Vallee Body Corporate, the body corporate of a residential sectional title scheme in Herderkruin Ext.1, Roodepoort, brought an application under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against N Buhle, the registered owner of unit 5 in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed over a period of time to pay levy contributions due in respect of the unit. According to the applicant’s October 2023 statement, the arrear amount was R11 717.29, inclusive of interest calculated at 24% per annum. The applicant stated that demands for payment had not resulted in settlement, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees had resolved to pursue recovery through CSOS. The respondent did not provide a substantive response or defence despite being invited to do so under section 43 of the CSOS Act. A certificate of non-resolution was issued on 21 December 2023 after conciliation failed, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to determine the levy dispute between the body corporate and the unit owner.
• Whether the applicant body corporate had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent owed arrear levy contributions in the amount of R11 717.29.
• Whether the body corporate was entitled to recover interest on the overdue levies in terms of the applicable management rules and statutory framework.
• Whether any valid defence had been raised by the respondent to resist payment of the claimed levies.
• Whether a costs order should be made in the circumstances.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R11 717.29 to the applicant in full on or before 31 May 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme is entitled, through section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act, to obtain an order compelling a unit owner to pay arrear levy contributions where the levies were properly raised under the STSMA and rules, the amount due is established on a balance of probabilities, and no valid defence is advanced. Interest on overdue amounts may be recovered where authorised by the management rules and a written trustee resolution. An owner may not withhold levy payments merely because the owner disputes the necessity or wisdom of the levy decision.

The adjudicator remarked generally that non-payment of levies can seriously destabilise a scheme and that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes because they fund maintenance, repair, insurance and security. The adjudicator also made general observations on the usual approach to costs under CSOS proceedings, noting that parties are generally expected to bear their own costs and that cost orders are more commonly associated with matters dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance under section 53.

The decision reinforces the enforceability of levy obligations in sectional title and community scheme governance through the CSOS dispute-resolution mechanism. It confirms that body corporates may obtain adjudication orders for unpaid levies and interest where they provide adequate documentary proof and the owner does not raise a valid defence. The matter also reflects the consistent South African approach that levy contributions are central to the viability of community schemes and cannot ordinarily be withheld because an owner disputes the underlying expenditure or decisions of the body corporate.