The Trustees of Piero Court Body Corporate v N Molefe and SN Molefe

The applicant, the Trustees of Piero Court Body Corporate, brought an application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under section 38 read with section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 for payment of arrear levies by the respondents, who were co-owners of a unit in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondents had fallen into arrears, had last paid in October 2022, and had been sent monthly levy statements and reminders without success. The applicant stated that levy income was necessary to pay municipal charges and other service providers and that non-payment strained the finances of this small scheme of about four units. The respondents filed no submissions. The application was brought with the assistance of a managing agent, Mawer and Delport, but the file did not contain a trustees' resolution authorising the managing agent to institute the CSOS application on behalf of the body corporate. The adjudicator requested the missing authorising resolutions under section 51, but they were not provided before adjudication.

• Whether the body corporate had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents were liable for payment of arrear levies.
• Whether the respondents' non-payment of levies entitled the applicant to relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the application was properly authorised and compliant, given the absence of a trustees' resolution authorising the managing agent to institute the CSOS proceedings on behalf of the applicant.
• Whether non-compliance with the representation/authorisation requirements before CSOS required dismissal of the application despite the apparent merits of the levy claim.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53 of the CSOS Act for non-compliance arising from the absence of proper authorisation for the managing agent to institute the proceedings on behalf of the applicant. The adjudicator stated that, once the required information is available, the applicant may bring a fresh application in the prescribed manner. No order as to costs was made. The text contains an internal inconsistency because an earlier page states that the relief was upheld, but the final adjudication order and reasons clearly dismiss the application.

A body corporate seeking relief before the CSOS for payment of arrear levies must not only prove the indebtedness but must also be properly authorised to institute the proceedings. Where a managing agent brings the application without a trustees' resolution authorising it to do so, and the defect is not cured after being called for, the application is not properly before the CSOS and may be dismissed notwithstanding the merits of the levy claim.

The adjudicator observed that the scheme was very small, consisting of about four units, and that non-payment of levies in such a scheme poses a serious risk to financial viability and the payment of local authority and service-provider accounts. The adjudicator also remarked generally that responsibility for non-payment must lie with the person obliged to pay, and noted that the applicant could reinstitute proceedings once proper authorisation was obtained. The apparent contradiction between the preliminary 'order' section and the final dismissal appears to be a drafting inconsistency rather than part of the legal reasoning.

The matter is significant for community schemes practice because it illustrates that, even where a body corporate can substantively prove levy arrears, procedural and authorisation requirements before the CSOS remain essential. It underscores the need for proper resolutions authorising a managing agent or other representative to institute proceedings on behalf of a body corporate. The case also reflects the statutory framework linking owners' duty to pay levies with the body corporate's obligation to fund municipal services and maintain the scheme under the STSMA.