Celeste van Eijnsbergen v The Trustees of Eagles Grove Body Corporate

The applicant, Celeste van Eijnsbergen, is the registered owner of Unit 30 in the Eagles Grove sectional title scheme in Honeydew, Gauteng. The body corporate had, following an annual general meeting process in September 2023, appointed a metering/on-seller company referred to in the papers as Impact Metering Services/Impact Meter Readers (the respondent's submissions also mention Alpha Metering, but the adjudicator treated Impact Meter Readers as the relevant service provider). The service provider required unit owners or occupiers to enter into individual agreements for the supply of electricity and to pay a deposit and outstanding electricity-related charges. The applicant objected to the terms, including extra charges and a deposit, and did not sign the agreement. On 11 December 2023, her electricity supply was disconnected. She brought an urgent CSOS application seeking an order compelling the body corporate to restore electricity to her section immediately. The respondent contended that the metering company had been duly approved at an AGM, that notice of the changeover and consequences of non-compliance had been given, that the applicant was substantially in arrears on levies and utility-related charges, and that the body corporate itself was not the supplier that disconnected the electricity.

• Whether the respondent body corporate could be ordered under section 39 of the CSOS Act to restore electricity to the applicant's section.
• Whether the disconnection of electricity was an act of the respondent body corporate or of an independent, registered electricity on-seller contracted to supply utilities to unit owners/occupiers.
• Whether the applicant had established, on a balance of probabilities, an entitlement to the relief sought against the respondent.
• Whether the arrangement under which a registered electricity reseller/on-seller supplies electricity directly to unit owners or occupiers was legally permissible.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act as misconceived and without substance. No order as to costs was made.

A CSOS application for restoration of electricity cannot succeed against a body corporate where the evidence shows that the electricity supply was disconnected by a duly registered electricity on-seller acting in terms of its own contractual relationship with the unit owner or occupier, and not by the body corporate itself. In such circumstances, the applicant fails to establish, on a balance of probabilities, a basis for relief against the cited respondent.

The adjudicator observed that the applicant would have to pay the arrear services account, the required deposit, and conclude an agreement with the on-seller in order to have services supplied to her section, but that she would not need to pay the full amount of arrear levies to the body corporate for that purpose because levies and service charges were distinct and arrear levies had to be recovered by the respondent through normal processes, including CSOS or court proceedings. These remarks went beyond what was strictly necessary to dismiss the application.

The matter is significant in the community schemes context because it confirms that a CSOS applicant must seek relief against the correct party. Where a body corporate has lawfully appointed a registered utility reseller/on-seller and the contractual relationship for supply exists directly between that reseller and the unit owner or occupier, the body corporate may not be the proper respondent for a reconnection order. The decision also recognises the legality of electricity resale/on-selling arrangements in sectional title schemes, subject to the applicable by-laws and regulatory framework.