The Trustees of Clairmont Court Body Corporate v M. Mpisi

The applicant, the Trustees of Clairmont Court Body Corporate, brought an application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, M. Mpisi, the owner of Unit 9 at Clairmont Court in Durban. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay monthly levies from March 2023 and that, despite attempts to secure payment, the account remained in arrears. According to the applicant’s latest statement, the amount outstanding as at 1 November 2023 was R4 226,53. The matter was dealt with on the papers after a certificate of non-resolution had been issued. The respondent was invited to file written submissions by 8 November 2023 but failed to respond and gave no explanation for the default.

• Whether the CSOS adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to order payment of outstanding levies.
• Whether the respondent, as owner of a unit in the sectional title scheme, was liable to pay the arrear levy contributions claimed by the body corporate.
• Whether the applicant had established on a balance of probabilities that R4 226,53 was due and payable by the respondent.
• Whether the body corporate was entitled to recover the arrear amount notwithstanding the respondent’s failure to participate in the proceedings.

The application was upheld. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant outstanding levies of R4 226,53 in two equal instalments of R2 113,26, the first due on 1 December 2023 and the second due on 1 January 2024. If the respondent failed to make the instalment payments, the full amount would immediately become due and payable. No order as to costs was made.

An owner of a unit in a sectional title scheme is obliged, by virtue of ownership and the statutory scheme under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act, to pay levy contributions lawfully raised by the body corporate. Where a body corporate proves on a balance of probabilities that levy contributions are outstanding, CSOS may grant an order under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act directing payment of the arrears. An unopposed, properly supported claim for arrear levies may be upheld on the papers.

The adjudicator referred to provisions and authorities concerning liability for interest and legal costs in levy recovery, including prescribed management rule 25(4) and section 3(2) of the STSM Act, but the final order did not separately award legal costs and did not expressly quantify or separately order interest beyond references in the introductory summary. The adjudicator also observed that if the amount had already been paid, the matter would effectively be closed; this was incidental and not part of the operative basis of the order.

This adjudication confirms the enforceability of levy obligations in sectional title and community scheme governance through the CSOS dispute-resolution mechanism. It illustrates that levy liability attaches to ownership and that a body corporate may obtain an order for payment of arrears on the papers where its documentary proof is adequate and the owner does not dispute the claim. The order also reflects the practical role of CSOS as a forum for recovery of scheme contributions without immediate resort to ordinary court proceedings.