Kilman Court Body Corporate v Dr. NL Lukhele Private Trust

The applicant, Kilman Court Body Corporate, is the body corporate of a registered sectional title scheme in Arcadia, Pretoria. The respondent, Dr. NL Lukhele Private Trust, is the registered owner of unit 15 (door 305) in the scheme and therefore a member of the scheme liable for contributions. 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, seeking an order compelling payment of arrear levies. The applicant alleged that the respondent had failed to make regular levy payments and owed R104 612.75, including interest charged at 2% per month. A contribution statement and breakdown of the account were provided. The respondent did not respond to the section 43 notice, did not answer the allegations, and did not settle the account. Conciliation failed, a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 30 September 2023, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether CSOS had jurisdiction to determine the levy dispute under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the applicant body corporate had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent was liable for arrear levy contributions in the amount claimed.
• Whether the evidence submitted by the applicant was sufficient to justify an order for payment of outstanding levies.
• Whether any costs order should be made in the adjudication.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R104 612.75 in full on or before 31 March 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate may obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levies where it establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent is an owner liable for contributions and that the levies were duly raised and remain unpaid. In a sectional title scheme, levy obligations are enforceable notwithstanding an owner's dissatisfaction with the decisions giving rise to them, and uncontested evidence such as a contribution statement may suffice to prove the indebtedness.

The adjudicator observed generally that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can seriously destabilise a scheme by undermining maintenance, repairs, insurance, security, and the collective interests of owners. The adjudicator also made general remarks on costs in CSOS adjudications, noting that parties are generally expected to bear their own costs and that cost orders are more readily made in dismissals under section 53 rather than routine section 54 adjudications.

The decision reinforces the statutory duty of sectional title owners to pay levies and confirms CSOS's role as an accessible forum for bodies corporate to recover arrear contributions under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act. It underscores that non-payment of levies threatens the financial sustainability of community schemes and that uncontested documentary proof of arrears can justify an adjudication order for payment. The matter also reflects the principle in South African sectional title law that owners cannot withhold levies because they dispute the propriety of the levies or the decisions underlying them.