Akasia Body Corporate v MF & H Mashiya

The applicant, Akasia Body Corporate, a sectional title body corporate for Akasia Court Body Corporate (SS 84/1999), brought an application under section 38 read with section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondents, MF and H Mashiya, the registered co-owners of unit 23 in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondents had failed over a period of time to pay levy contributions due in respect of their unit. According to the applicant’s November 2023 statement, the arrear levy amount was R7 737.29. The applicant stated that requests for payment had been made, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees had resolved to proceed through CSOS for recovery of the arrears. The matter was referred to conciliation, which failed, and a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 26 January 2024. Despite being requested to provide a response and afforded a further opportunity to do so, the respondents did not file a substantive defence disputing the levy claim.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to grant an order for payment of arrear levy contributions.
• Whether the applicant body corporate had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents owed arrear levies in the amount of R7 737.29.
• Whether the respondents had raised any valid defence to the levy claim.
• Whether a costs order should be made in the circumstances.

The application was granted. The respondents were ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R7 737.29 in full on or before 31 May 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate may obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levy contributions where it places sufficient evidence before the adjudicator showing the amount due and the basis upon which levies were raised, and where the owner fails to present a valid defence. Levy obligations validly imposed under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and the scheme’s management rules are enforceable through CSOS, and an owner cannot simply withhold payment in the absence of a lawful basis.

The adjudicator observed that non-payment of levies can seriously destabilise a scheme and that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes because they fund maintenance, repair, insurance and security. The adjudicator also noted, for completeness, that Management Rule 21(3)(c) permits interest to be charged on overdue amounts where authorised by trustee resolution, although no separate interest order appears to have been made in this matter.

This decision illustrates the CSOS’s role as an accessible statutory forum for the recovery of arrear levies in sectional title schemes. It reinforces the principle that body corporates may enforce duly raised levy obligations through CSOS adjudication and that failure by owners to respond or raise a substantive defence will generally result in an enforcement order. The ruling also underscores the importance in South African sectional title law of prompt levy payment to preserve the financial stability of community schemes.