The applicant, the Executive Committee of Albertsdal Leopards Rest Homeowners' Association (ALRHOA), is the governing homeowners' association of the estate. The respondent, Fanayi Jacquelene Tshabalala, is the registered owner of unit 4576 in the scheme. ALRHOA brought an application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 seeking relief under section 39(1)(e) for payment of arrear levies. The applicant alleged that, under its Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI), all members are obliged to pay monthly levies in advance and may not withhold payment. It initially stated that the respondent owed R4 373.52 in arrears, despite SMS reminders, notices, letters of demand, and attempts to conclude a repayment agreement. In response, the respondent did not dispute liability but offered to pay R200 per month until the arrears were settled; that proposal was rejected by the applicant. By the time final written submissions were lodged, the applicant's levy statement reflected an increased outstanding amount of R5 558.92 as at 9 November 2023.
The application was granted in part. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant R5 558.92 in three equal instalments of R1 852.97, with the first payment due on 15 December 2023 and the remaining payments due on 1 January 2024 and 1 February 2024. The order stated that no interest would accrue during the allowed payment period, but if the respondent failed to pay as directed, the full amount would become immediately payable. The adjudicator refused the applicant's request for an order for payment of future monthly contributions. No order as to costs was made.
A registered owner in a homeowners' association becomes bound by the scheme's MOI and applicable conduct or administrative rules, and is liable to pay levies in accordance with those instruments. In CSOS proceedings under section 39(1)(e), where the association proves arrear levies on a balance of probabilities and the owner does not provide a substantive defence disputing liability, an adjudicator may order payment of the arrears. However, relief is confined to what is properly sought and established within the CSOS Act, and an order for future contributions will not be granted merely because ongoing levies ordinarily remain payable.
The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of a homeowners' association and that directors cannot perform their duties without funds from members. The decision also noted generally that, although the order did not grant specific relief for future levies, the respondent remained obliged to continue paying the usual regular monthly levies and ancillary charges. The discussion of the contractual nature of community scheme rules, with reference to Mount Edgecombe and BAE Estates, included broader remarks on owners voluntarily or necessarily accepting the governance regime of such schemes.
The matter is a useful CSOS levy-recovery decision confirming that owners in homeowners' associations are bound by the scheme's constitutive documents and may be compelled through CSOS adjudication to pay arrear levies. It also illustrates the adjudicator's approach to balancing enforcement with practicality by allowing instalment payments, while at the same time limiting relief to what is properly claimed and proved under section 39 of the CSOS Act. The decision reinforces the importance of levies to the functioning of community schemes and the enforceability of HOA rules and MOI obligations in South African community scheme governance.