David Phahlamohlaka obo The Nest Body Corporate v VVP Jajula

The authorised representative, David Phahlamohlaka, brought a CSOS application on behalf of the trustees of The Nest Body Corporate, a sectional title scheme forming part of the Eagle Trace Estate Homeowners' Association in Fourways, Johannesburg. The respondent, VVP Jajula, is the registered owner of section 27 in the scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. The applicant alleged that the respondent had failed over time to pay levy contributions due in respect of unit 27. The account reflected historical arrears dating back as far as 2006. The applicant initially claimed R221 233.89 as at July 2023, inclusive of interest, and sought an order under section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 for payment of the outstanding levies. The respondent did not file a response despite being notified and given opportunities to do so. A certificate of non-resolution was issued after conciliation failed, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to order payment of levy contributions owed to the body corporate.
• Whether the applicant had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent owed arrear levy contributions.
• Whether the body corporate was entitled to recover the full amount claimed, given that part of the arrears dated back to 2006.
• Whether the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 limited recovery of older levy debts in the absence of proof of interruption of prescription.
• Whether a costs order should be made.

The application was granted in part. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R99 307.89 to the applicant, payable in 12 equal monthly instalments of R8 275.66 commencing on 1 December 2023, plus interest calculated at 24% per annum. The order provided that if the respondent defaulted, the full outstanding amount would immediately become due and payable. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate may obtain relief through CSOS for payment of arrear levy contributions under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act where it proves the indebtedness on a balance of probabilities. However, levy debts remain subject to the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, and in the absence of proof that prescription was interrupted, only the non-prescribed portion of the arrears is recoverable. An owner may not withhold levy payments on the basis of disagreement with the decision to impose them.

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can destabilise a scheme and prejudice all owners. The adjudicator also commented generally that parties in CSOS adjudications are usually expected to bear their own costs, with adverse costs orders being more typical in matters dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or without substance. No further detailed obiter remarks appear from the text.

The decision is significant in community schemes law because it illustrates CSOS's power to enforce payment of arrear levy contributions under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act while also applying ordinary debt-enforcement principles such as prescription. It underscores that levy obligations are central to the functioning of sectional title and homeowners' schemes, and that owners cannot simply ignore or withhold payment. At the same time, the case shows that a body corporate must still prove interruption of prescription if it seeks to recover older arrears.