Akasia Body Corporate v S Mahlobo

The applicant, Akasia Body Corporate, represented by its managing agent Fuzio Properties (Pty) Ltd pursuant to a trustee resolution dated 23 August 2023, brought an application under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, S Mahlobo, the registered owner of Unit 65 in the sectional title scheme. The scheme is a residential sectional title development situated at Market and Botha Street, Vereeniging, Johannesburg, Gauteng. 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 November 2023 statement, the arrear levy contribution amounted to R12 072.99. The applicant stated that requests for payment had been made, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees resolved to proceed through CSOS to recover the outstanding amount. A response was requested from the respondent under s 43 of the CSOS Act, but the respondent failed to provide a defence or dispute the claim. Conciliation did not resolve the dispute, and a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 26 January 2024 before the matter was referred for adjudication.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under the CSOS Act to determine 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 owed arrear levy contributions of R12 072.99.
• Whether an order should be granted under s 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act requiring payment of the outstanding contributions.
• Whether any order as to costs should be made.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R12 072.99 to the applicant in full on or before 31 May 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme may obtain relief under s 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levies where it establishes, on a balance of probabilities, the existence and amount of the contribution due. Levy contributions validly raised in terms of the STSMA and applicable management rules are recoverable from the registered owner, and in the absence of a substantiated defence, the adjudicator may order payment. An owner may not simply withhold levy payments because of disagreement with the decision to impose them.

The adjudicator observed that non-payment of levies can seriously destabilise a scheme because levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living arrangements and fund maintenance, insurance, security, and other common expenses. The adjudicator also commented that cost orders are generally not made in s 54 adjudications and are more commonly associated with dismissals under s 53 in frivolous or non-compliant matters. The reference to Management Rule 21(3)(c) concerning interest on overdue amounts was noted for completeness, although no specific interest order was made in the final relief.

This decision illustrates the CSOS adjudication process as an effective statutory mechanism for bodies corporate to recover unpaid levy contributions from unit owners. It reinforces the principle in South African sectional title law that levy contributions are compulsory and essential to the functioning and financial viability of a scheme, and that an owner who does not dispute liability with evidence is likely to face a payment order. The decision also confirms the reluctance of CSOS adjudicators to make costs orders in ordinary levy-recovery matters absent exceptional circumstances.