Cecelia Crawford, owner of unit 32, together with fourteen other owners in the Cedarwood Homeowners' Association (CHOA), brought a dispute-resolution application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. They sought relief under section 39(1)(c), contending that levies charged by CHOA were incorrectly determined or unreasonable. Their complaint was that CHOA continued to levy owners on the basis of a budget that still included higher security and garden-service costs, despite the Cedarwood Village body corporate allegedly having paid some of those expenses directly from its own account from September 2019. The applicants argued that CHOA, as a non-profit company, could only raise levies for expenses actually incurred or reasonably anticipated under its MOI, and that the levy calculation should have been adjusted to exclude those duplicated or separately paid items. CHOA opposed the application, contending that the relevant expenses remained CHOA expenses, that proper supporting documents for any alleged payments by the body corporate had not been furnished, and that any reconciliation could not simply be credited against individual owners' levy accounts because the contracting entities were CHOA and the body corporate, not individual owners. CHOA further pointed to a 5 December 2022 AGM decision to keep levies unchanged and argued that any challenge to that decision was out of time under section 41(1) of the CSOS Act. During the adjudicator's investigation it emerged that one of the applicants, Wesley Ryan Herman, had already been served with a combined summons in the Johannesburg North Magistrates' Court relating to similar facts and arrear levies, and that similar levy-collection matters involving other owners were also pending in civil courts.
The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act as being without substance. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Where litigation concerning substantially similar issues of arrear levies is already pending in another competent forum and may materially affect the dispute before CSOS, an adjudicator may, in the interests of justice, dismiss the CSOS application as without substance under section 53(1)(a) rather than determine the merits. The adjudicator also affirmed that CSOS powers are confined to the statute and that, on the evidence presented, a levy cannot be declared unreasonable merely because members dispute the underlying expenditure or accounting treatment; members cannot withhold levies solely on the basis of disputing the necessity or financial wisdom of the levy decision.
The adjudicator's remarks on the meaning of 'reasonableness', drawing on Bato Star Fishing and Bushwillow Park Home Owners v Fernandes, were explanatory and not essential to the dismissal because the matter was not decided on the merits. Likewise, the suggestion that the parties could appoint an independent auditor to resolve the accounting dispute was a non-binding practical recommendation. The discussion that the application may also have contravened section 41(1) due to lateness was raised in the respondent's contentions but was not finally determined as the basis of the order.
This adjudication is significant in the community schemes context because it illustrates that the CSOS may decline to entertain a levy dispute where substantially similar issues are already before a civil court, especially where the pending litigation may materially affect the outcome. It also reaffirms that CSOS adjudicators operate within strictly statutory powers, that levy disputes are assessed against standards of reasonableness, and that owners generally may not withhold levies merely because they dispute the wisdom or necessity of the expenditure. The order also shows the practical limits of CSOS adjudication in complex accounting disputes involving a homeowners' association and a body corporate, where documentary proof and inter-entity accounting may be central.