The Trustees of Riverlane Body Corporate v Beatrix Sissanna Smit

The applicant, the Trustees of Riverlane Body Corporate, brought an application under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 for payment of arrear levies owed by the respondent, Beatrix Sussanne/Sissanna Smit, the owner of Unit 45 in the Riverlane scheme in Sonneglans, Randburg. The body corporate, assisted by its managing agent Whitfields Property Management (Pty) Ltd and acting pursuant to a trustees' resolution dated 6 March 2023, alleged that the respondent had fallen into arrears on levy payments. Monthly levy statements, reminders and notices were sent to the respondent, but no payment was made. The respondent did not file any submissions or explanation in the CSOS proceedings. The body corporate sought an order compelling payment of the outstanding amount of R65 370.13.

• Whether the CSOS adjudicator had jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to determine a levy-recovery dispute between a body corporate and a unit owner.
• Whether the applicant established on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was indebted to the body corporate for arrear levies.
• Whether a unit owner's obligation to pay levies as an incident of sectional title ownership entitled the body corporate to an order compelling payment of the arrears claimed.
• Whether any basis existed to refuse relief where the respondent filed no submissions in answer to the applicant's claim.

The application was upheld. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant R65 370.13 within 30 days of the order dated 11 July 2023. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate is entitled, under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act read with sections 3 and 4 of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and the scheme rules, to obtain an order compelling a unit owner to pay arrear levies where the evidence shows on a balance of probabilities that the levies are due and unpaid. Liability for levies attaches to ownership of the sectional title unit, and absent any rebuttal from the owner, documentary proof of arrears and prior demand is sufficient to justify relief.

The adjudicator observed that non-payment of levies poses a serious risk to the financial viability of the scheme and may prevent payment to municipalities and service providers. The adjudicator also made general remarks about the standard of proof, relevance of evidence, and the principle that responsibility should be placed on the person liable. These comments were supportive of the decision but not strictly necessary to the final order.

The decision illustrates the operation of the CSOS dispute-resolution mechanism for recovery of arrear sectional title levies. It reaffirms that a body corporate may invoke section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to obtain an enforceable order for payment of levies, and that levy liability is a necessary incident of ownership in a sectional title scheme. The ruling also underscores the central importance of levy collection to the financial sustainability and administration of community schemes under the STSMA.