Benoni City Body Corporate v Applesamy Romjogi Naidoo and Jayalutchmi Naidoo

The applicant, Benoni City Body Corporate, a sectional title body corporate established under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 (STSMA), brought a CSOS application against the registered co-owners of unit 207, Applesamy Romjogi Naidoo and Jayalutchmi Naidoo. The dispute concerned the respondents' failure to pay monthly levies and related ancillary charges due to the body corporate. The applicant alleged that despite attempts to recover the debt through phone calls, text messages, and email, the respondents remained in arrears. As at 28 May 2024, the applicant's statement of account reflected an outstanding amount of R24 564.68, comprising levies, utility costs, interest on arrears, credit control charges, maintenance levy, printing and stationery, and ancillary costs including CSOS levies. The applicant also relied on a trustees' resolution adopted on 4 September 2023 approving, among other things, interest at 2% per month and ancillary charges. The respondents filed no submissions in response.

• Whether the respondents, as co-owners of a unit in the sectional title scheme, were liable to the body corporate for unpaid levies and ancillary charges.
• Whether the applicant had proved on a balance of probabilities that the amount of R24 564.68 was due and payable.
• Whether the ancillary charges and interest claimed were lawfully recoverable under the STSMA, the scheme rules, and the trustees' resolution.
• Whether relief should be granted under section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 for payment of contributions or other amounts.

The application was granted. The respondents were declared jointly and severally indebted to the applicant in the amount of R24 564.68 for levies and ancillary amounts relating to unit 207 as at 28 May 2024. They were ordered to pay that amount in 12 equal monthly instalments of R2 047.06, commencing on 1 July 2024, with the remaining 11 instalments due on the last day of each succeeding month. The order expressly preserved the respondents' ongoing obligation to pay regular monthly levies and ancillary charges. It further provided that if the respondents default on any payment, the full outstanding balance becomes immediately due and payable. The order stated that interest of 2% per month would accrue on any outstanding amount in the event of non-compliance with the payment order, although clause 47.6 appears to contain a drafting error by referring to the applicant instead of the respondents. There was no order as to costs.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme is entitled, under the STSMA and the CSOS Act, to recover unpaid levies and ancillary charges from unit owners where those charges are authorised by the Act, the rules, or a valid trustees' resolution, and where the indebtedness is proved on a balance of probabilities. Relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act is competent to compel payment of such contributions or other amounts. Owners remain liable for ongoing monthly levies notwithstanding any instalment arrangement for arrears.

The adjudicator observed that an owner who defaults on levy payments is effectively subsidised by other owners who pay conscientiously, and that a body corporate cannot perform its statutory functions without funds from unit owners. The adjudicator also noted the appeal mechanism under section 57 of the CSOS Act, namely that an appeal lies to the High Court only on a question of law. Additionally, clause 47.6 of the order appears to contain a non-substantive drafting error in referring to the applicant's failure to make payment, when the context indicates the respondents were intended.

This decision illustrates the CSOS's role in enforcing body corporate levy obligations through adjudication under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act. It reaffirms that sectional title owners are obliged to contribute to the body corporate's funds and that properly authorised levies and ancillary charges may be recovered through CSOS proceedings. The matter is also practically significant because it demonstrates that, even in the absence of opposition, the adjudicator must still be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the debt is proved by documentary evidence and is lawfully chargeable under the STSMA and scheme rules.