Akasia Body Corporate v Matodzi Mukwevho

The applicant, Akasia Body Corporate, being the body corporate of a residential sectional title scheme situated at Market and Botha Street, Vereeniging, Gauteng, brought an application under section 38 read with section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act). The respondent, Matodzi Mukwevho, is the registered owner of unit 69 in the scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed over a period of time to pay levy contributions due in respect of the unit. According to the applicant's November 2023 statement, the arrear levy amount was R20 971.02. The applicant stated that requests for payment had been made, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees had resolved to proceed through CSOS. The respondent did not provide a substantive response or valid defence despite being invited to do so, and after conciliation failed a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 26 January 2024.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to determine the dispute concerning unpaid levy contributions.
• Whether the body corporate had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent owed arrear levies in the amount of R20 971.02.
• Whether the respondent had raised any valid defence to liability for the levy contributions.
• Whether a costs order should be made in the circumstances.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R20 971.02 to the applicant in full on or before 31 May 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate, as a community scheme association, may obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of outstanding levy contributions where it proves the indebtedness on a balance of probabilities through relevant scheme records and statements. In a sectional title scheme, levy contributions validly raised pursuant to the body corporate’s statutory powers are recoverable from the unit owner, and an owner’s failure to dispute or rebut the documentary evidence justifies an adjudication order for payment.

The adjudicator observed 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 investment of owners. The adjudicator also remarked, for completeness, on Management Rule 21(3)(c) regarding the charging of interest on overdue amounts and on the general position that parties in section 54 CSOS adjudications ordinarily bear their own costs unless circumstances justify otherwise.

The decision reinforces the enforceability of levy obligations within sectional title and other community schemes through the CSOS dispute-resolution framework. It confirms that a body corporate may obtain an order under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for unpaid contributions where it presents sufficient documentary proof and the owner fails to advance a defence. The order also underscores a recurring principle in South African sectional title law: owners may not withhold levies because they disagree with management decisions, as the financial stability of the scheme depends on regular payment by all members.