Trustees of Estel Estate Body Corporate v RP Maja

The applicant was the trustees of the body corporate of Estel Estate, a sectional titles body corporate and community scheme situated in Clarina, Pretoria, represented by MEMS Letting (Pty) Ltd as managing agent. The respondent, RP Maja, was the registered owner of Unit 59 in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed or refused to pay levies, CSOS levies, and related ancillary charges despite notices and letters of demand. It produced a levy statement for the period 1 January 2019 to 30 November 2023, showing that the account had been in arrears since 1 March 2019 and that as at 1 November 2023 the arrears totalled R105,651.63. The applicant sought an order for payment of that amount under s 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, as well as attachment and execution against the respondent’s immovable property, an order directing any tenant to pay rental to the body corporate under s 39(1)(f), and costs. The respondent filed no submissions.

• Whether the respondent, as owner of Unit 59, was liable to pay the arrear levies and ancillary charges claimed by the body corporate.
• Whether the applicant had proved, on a balance of probabilities, the amount of R105,651.63 as owing as at 1 November 2023.
• Whether the CSOS adjudicator had jurisdiction under s 39 of the CSOS Act to grant attachment and execution against the respondent’s immovable property.
• Whether the applicant had established the factual basis for relief under s 39(1)(f) directing a tenant to pay rental to the body corporate instead of the owner.
• Whether interest on overdue levies was validly chargeable under the scheme rules and PMR 21.
• Whether the applicant was entitled to a costs order or to interest from date of order to date of payment under the CSOS Act.

The application succeeded in part. The adjudicator found that the respondent owed the applicant R105,651.63 in respect of levies and ancillary charges as at 1 November 2023 and ordered payment in 48 consecutive equal monthly instalments of R2,201.08, the first payable within 30 days of delivery of the order and the remaining 47 on the first day of each succeeding month. No interest would accrue on the outstanding amount during the 48-month payment period. The requests for attachment and execution against the immovable property, for diversion of rental from any tenant, and for costs from date of order to date of payment were refused. The order did not affect the respondent’s obligation to continue paying current monthly levies and ancillary charges, and if the respondent defaulted on any instalment, the full amount would immediately become due and payable. There was no order as to costs.

A unit owner in a sectional titles scheme is obliged to pay levies and ancillary charges validly raised by the body corporate, and where the body corporate proves the indebtedness on a balance of probabilities through levy statements, approved budget resolutions, and compliance with applicable management rules, a payment order under s 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act may be granted. By contrast, a CSOS adjudicator may grant only relief falling within s 39 of the CSOS Act; attachment and execution against immovable property are outside that statutory remit. Relief under s 39(1)(f) directing a tenant to pay rent to the body corporate requires proof that a tenant exists, that a lease is in place, and that the affected tenant is properly before the proceedings.

The adjudicator observed that defaulting owners are effectively subsidised by other members of the body corporate and that non-payment of levies undermines the body corporate’s ability to perform its statutory functions and may affect maintenance, repairs, and the value of other owners’ property. The adjudicator also referred to High Court and Supreme Court authority, including Body Corporate of Kleber v Sehube and Body Corporate of Empire Gardens v Sithole, to underline the importance of levy collection and the statutory funding obligations of body corporates. These comments were supportive of the reasoning but not strictly necessary to the dispositive findings on the scope of CSOS relief and proof of indebtedness.

The matter illustrates the scope and limits of the CSOS adjudicative remedy structure in levy recovery disputes. It confirms that a body corporate may obtain a CSOS order for payment of arrear levies and related charges on proof of indebtedness, but that remedies such as execution against immovable property fall outside the powers conferred by s 39 of the CSOS Act. It also shows that rental diversion orders under s 39(1)(f) require proper evidential foundation, including proof of a tenant and lease, and procedural fairness to affected parties. The order is also significant for demonstrating that a CSOS adjudicator may structure repayment in instalments and suspend further interest accrual for that period, while preserving the body corporate’s right to current levies and acceleration upon default.