Akasia Body Corporate v RFL Rodriques

The applicant, Akasia Body Corporate, represented by its managing agent Fuzio Properties (Pty) Ltd under trustee authority, 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, RFL Rodriques, is the registered owner of unit 81 in the sectional title scheme Akasia Court Body Corporate and is therefore a member of the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed over a period of time to pay levy contributions due in respect of his unit. According to the applicant’s November 2023 statement, the arrear levy amount was R113 517.70. The applicant stated that requests for payment had been made, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees had resolved to institute proceedings through CSOS. The respondent did not provide a substantive response or valid defence to the levy claim despite being afforded an opportunity to do so. A certificate of non-resolution was issued on 26 January 2024 after conciliation failed, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether CSOS had jurisdiction under the CSOS Act to adjudicate a dispute concerning unpaid levy contributions in a sectional title scheme.
• Whether the body corporate had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent was liable for arrear levies in the amount of R113 517.70.
• Whether the respondent had raised any valid defence to the body corporate’s claim for levy contributions.
• Whether a costs order should be made in the adjudication.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R113 517.70 to the applicant 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 proves, on a balance of probabilities, that levies were duly raised and remain unpaid by a unit owner. In a sectional title scheme, an owner’s dissatisfaction with the administration of the scheme does not constitute a valid basis for withholding levy payments. Where the body corporate provides sufficient documentary proof of the debt and the respondent fails to raise a substantive defence, an adjudicator is entitled to order payment of the arrears.

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, repairs, insurance and security for the benefit of all owners. The adjudicator also commented generally that costs orders are not ordinarily made in section 54 adjudications and are more commonly associated with dismissals under section 53 in cases that are frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance.

This adjudication reinforces the enforceability of sectional title levy obligations through the CSOS dispute-resolution mechanism. It confirms that disputes over unpaid levies fall squarely within section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act and illustrates that a body corporate can obtain an adjudication order for payment where it provides adequate documentary proof and the owner fails to raise a substantiated defence. The decision also underscores a recurring principle in South African sectional title law: owners may not withhold levies because they are dissatisfied with the administration of the scheme. The matter is practically important for community schemes because it highlights the centrality of levy collection to the viability and financial stability of shared property developments.