Kransrand Body Corporate v PR Isaac

Kransrand Body Corporate, a registered sectional title scheme development situated in Monument Park, Pretoria, brought an application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, identified in the order as PR Isaac and elsewhere as PE Isaac, the registered owner of a unit in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levy contributions due to the scheme. It claimed arrear levies and interest totalling R22 611.52 and attached a contribution statement/breakdown in support. The respondent did not respond to the section 43 notice, did not answer the allegations, and did not settle the account despite requests. Conciliation failed, a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 12 September 2023, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction to determine the dispute under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the applicant body corporate had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent owed arrear levy contributions and interest in the amount of R22 611.52.
• Whether an order for payment of levy contributions should be granted under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether any order as to costs should be made.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R22 611.52 in full on or before 31 March 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme is entitled, under the STSMA and through section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act, to recover duly raised levy contributions from an owner/member where it proves the indebtedness on a balance of probabilities. An owner may not withhold levy payments on the basis of disputing the necessity or wisdom of the levy, and where the applicant provides sufficient documentary proof and the respondent offers no answer, an order for payment is justified.

The adjudicator remarked generally that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can destabilise a scheme by undermining maintenance, repair, insurance, security and the collective financial interests of owners. The order also included general observations on costs under the CSOS Act, noting that parties usually bear their own costs unless the matter falls within the limited circumstances justifying a costs order.

This decision illustrates the CSOS’s role in enforcing levy obligations within sectional title and community schemes. It reaffirms that body corporates may recover unpaid levies through CSOS adjudication and that non-payment threatens the viability of shared living schemes. The matter also reflects the principle that owners cannot simply withhold levies because they disagree with the body corporate’s decisions, and that uncontested documentary proof may suffice to obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.