CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Crescendo Body Corporate v Mabio Potego Benedict

CitationCSOS 5781/GP/23
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Community Schemes Ombud Service Act No.9 of 2011
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in

Facts of the Case

Crescendo Body Corporate, a registered sectional title scheme development, applied for an adjudication order in terms of the CSOS Act to recover outstanding levies from Mabio Potego Benedict, who is the owner of unit 153. The respondent failed to make regular payments and has not responded to the application or allegations made against him.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for the payment of a contribution in terms of section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.

Judicial Outcome

The applicant's relief sought was granted for the payment of arrear levy contributions in the amount of R20 850.98 (twenty thousand, eight hundred and fifty rand and 98 cent), which is payable in full on/before 31 March 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a member cannot withhold levies on the grounds that they dispute the necessity or financial wisdom of the decision to impose such levies. The failure to pay levies can destabilize a scheme and negatively affect collective interests, making regular payment essential for all members.

Obiter Dicta

The adjudicator noted that the respondent has also failed to respond to the CSOS section 43 Notice issued on 30 August 2023, which resulted in the referral of this dispute for adjudication.

Legal Significance

This case highlights the enforcement mechanisms available under the CSOS Act for community schemes to recover outstanding levies from members, emphasizing the importance of compliance with financial obligations within such schemes.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Community Schemes Ombud Service Act No.9 of 2011 cases

  • Clivia Gardens Body Corporate v Tsobole Vusi JeanCSOS 6543/GP/23
  • Growth Invest 133 (PTY)LTD v AM Mnakathi and Lala Palm Body CorporateCSOS 4441/KZN/23
  • Route 82 Homeowners' Association v T WashomaCSOS 2715/GP/23

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97