Leconfield Court Body Corporate v P Bajic

Leconfield Court Body Corporate, a registered sectional title scheme development, brought an application under section 38 read with section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against P Bajic, described as a joint registered owner of section 23 in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed over a period of time to make regular levy payments due in respect of unit 23. According to the contribution statement and breakdown provided by the applicant, the arrear levy contributions totalled R48 641.63. The applicant stated that requests for payment had been made, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees had resolved to pursue recovery through CSOS. A section 43 request for a response was sent to the respondent on 10 October 2023, but the respondent failed to respond to the allegations or to provide final written submissions. A certificate of non-resolution was issued and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to grant an order for payment of outstanding levy contributions.
• Whether the applicant body corporate had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent owed arrear levies in the amount of R48 641.63.
• Whether a body corporate is entitled under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 and the management rules to recover levy contributions from an owner of a unit.
• Whether any basis existed to refuse the relief sought in circumstances where the respondent filed no answering submissions.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions to the applicant in the amount of R48 641.63 on or before 30 April 2024. No order was made as to costs.

A body corporate may obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of outstanding levy contributions where it proves, on a balance of probabilities, that levies were validly raised under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and applicable management rules and remain unpaid by the owner of the unit. In such circumstances, and absent a valid defence, the owner is obliged to pay the arrear levies, as levy payments are enforceable incidents of membership in a sectional title scheme.

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can seriously destabilise a scheme by prejudicing maintenance, repair, insurance, security, and the collective investment interests of owners. The adjudicator also commented generally that cost orders are more commonly made in matters dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or without substance, rather than in ordinary section 54 adjudications.

The matter illustrates the CSOS's role as a statutory forum for the recovery of unpaid levy contributions in sectional title and other community schemes. It reaffirms that levy obligations are enforceable through CSOS adjudication and underscores the broader principle in South African sectional title law that owners may not simply withhold levies, as such non-payment threatens the financial viability of the scheme. The order also demonstrates the practical consequences of failing to respond in CSOS proceedings where the applicant's documentary proof is otherwise sufficient.