Crescendo Body Corporate v Mabio Potego Benedict

The applicant, Crescendo Body Corporate, is the body corporate of a registered sectional title scheme situated in Doringkloof, Centurion, Gauteng. The respondent, Mabio Potego Benedict, is the owner of unit 153 in the scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. The body corporate brought an application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under section 38 read with section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 for payment of arrear levy contributions. It alleged that the respondent had failed to make regular levy payments and owed R20 850.98, inclusive of interest and recoverable charges, despite requests for payment. The applicant submitted a breakdown of the contribution statement for the unit and stated that internal remedies had been exhausted. The respondent did not respond to the application or to the section 43 notice calling for submissions. A certificate of non-resolution was issued on 26 October 2023 after conciliation failed, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under the CSOS Act to adjudicate a dispute concerning unpaid levy contributions in a sectional title scheme.
• Whether the applicant body corporate established on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was liable for arrear levy contributions in the amount claimed.
• Whether an order should be granted under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act requiring the respondent to pay the outstanding levies.
• Whether any order as to costs should be made in the adjudication.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R20 850.98 to the applicant in full on or before 31 March 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme may obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levies where it proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the levies were validly raised and remain unpaid. Levy contributions are enforceable obligations of unit owners, and a respondent's failure to dispute supported evidence may justify granting the payment order on the papers.

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can destabilise the scheme and prejudice all owners by undermining maintenance, insurance, security and related shared expenses. The adjudicator also made general remarks that parties in section 54 adjudications are generally expected to bear their own costs, with cost orders being more common in dismissals under section 53.

The matter illustrates the CSOS's role as an accessible statutory forum for recovery of unpaid levies in sectional title and other community schemes. It reaffirms that levy obligations are enforceable through section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act, that non-payment threatens the financial viability of community schemes, and that an owner cannot simply withhold levies because of disagreement with the body corporate's decisions. It also shows that where a respondent fails to participate, a properly supported documentary claim may suffice for relief on the papers.