The Trustees of Caranita Body Corporate v S. Buthelezi

The applicant, the Trustees of Caranita Body Corporate, brought a dispute-resolution application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, S. Buthelezi, the owner of unit 45 in the Caranita scheme in Verwoerdpark, Johannesburg. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay monthly levies from June 2023 and that, despite attempts to secure payment, the arrears remained outstanding. The applicant relied on a statement of account showing an outstanding amount of R4 568,62 as at 8 November 2023. The respondent was invited to file written submissions but failed to respond. The matter proceeded on the papers after a certificate of non-resolution had been issued following the CSOS process.

• Whether the body corporate was entitled under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to an order compelling payment of arrear levies by the respondent.
• Whether the evidence placed before the adjudicator established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent owed R4 568,62 in outstanding levies and interest.
• Whether the applicant was entitled to recover legal costs in addition to the arrear levies, in the absence of consent, taxation, or an order authorising such costs.

The application was upheld. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant R4 568,62, inclusive of interest, in two equal instalments of R2 284,31, the first due on 1 December 2023 and the second due on 1 January 2024. If the respondent failed to make payment, the full amount would become immediately due and payable. No order as to costs was made.

An owner in a sectional title scheme is liable to pay levies validly raised by the body corporate, because levy liability attaches to ownership and flows from the statutory and rule-based framework governing the scheme. Under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act, the adjudicator may order payment of arrear contributions where the body corporate proves the indebtedness on a balance of probabilities. However, legal costs relating to collection are not recoverable from the owner unless such costs have been agreed, taxed, or authorised by a competent order or judgment.

The adjudicator made broader observations that owners who buy into community schemes voluntarily subject themselves to the scheme's rules and governance structure, and that non-payment of levies undermines the functioning of the body corporate's statutory obligations. The order also included explanatory comments about the right of appeal under section 57 of the CSOS Act, but those remarks were procedural and not part of the substantive determination.

The decision illustrates the CSOS adjudication mechanism for recovery of sectional title levies and confirms that liability for levies is a necessary incident of unit ownership in a community scheme. It is also significant for its treatment of legal costs: even where levy arrears are proved, a body corporate may not simply load untaxed or unagreed legal fees onto an owner's account without proper authority. The case reflects the application of the STSM Act, prescribed management rules, and CSOS remedial powers in everyday levy-enforcement disputes.