Delson Court Body Corporate v Zikhona Mjada

The applicant, Delson Court Body Corporate, brought an application under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 seeking payment of alleged arrear levies and related charges from the respondent, Zikhona Mjada, the registered owner of Unit 20, Delson Court, Boksburg. The body corporate alleged that the respondent was indebted in the amount of R6 443.52 as at 11 April 2023, later reflected in a ledger as approximately R9 713, for the period 1 September 2022 to 11 April 2023, together with interest at 2% per month, credit control charges, and future compliance with monthly levy payments. The respondent disputed the indebtedness, contending that her levies were up to date and that the statement improperly included disputed items such as charges for damage to common property, water wastage, repair of a water leak, penalties, CSOS administration fees, attendance fees, letters of demand, handover fees, and SMS charges. She explained that a water-pipe incident occurred after her tyre hooked a tap, that she reported it, arranged a plumber at her own expense, and considered the additional charges unfair. Upon reviewing the papers, the adjudicator found a material dispute of fact regarding the disputed charges. The adjudicator invited both parties to attend a Microsoft Teams meeting/oral process to substantiate their claims and defences under section 51 of the CSOS Act. The respondent did not respond, and the applicant expressly declined to attend, insisting that the order simply be issued on the papers.

• Whether the applicant had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent owed arrear levies and other amounts claimed.
• Whether the charges included in the respondent's account, including penalties, damage-related charges, water-related charges, CSOS administration fees, attendance fees, and credit control charges, were properly due and payable.
• Whether there was a material dispute of fact that could not be resolved adequately on the papers alone.
• Whether the applicant's refusal to comply with the adjudicator's request to attend an interview/meeting under section 51 of the CSOS Act justified dismissal of the application under section 53.

The application was dismissed in its entirety. No order as to costs was made.

Where a body corporate seeks a CSOS order for payment of alleged arrears but the account contains materially disputed charges and the adjudicator, acting under section 51 of the CSOS Act, requires the applicant to attend an interview or provide further substantiation, the applicant's failure or refusal to comply justifies dismissal of the application under section 53. The applicant bears the burden of proving the indebtedness claimed on a balance of probabilities.

The adjudicator observed, with reference to Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd, that motion-type proceedings carry the risk of factual disputes that may not be resolvable on paper. The adjudicator also indicated that justice would best be served by hearing oral substantiation from both parties regarding the disputed charges. These comments were explanatory and procedural rather than necessary beyond the dispositive finding of non-compliance with section 51.

The decision is significant for community schemes adjudication under the CSOS Act because it underscores that a body corporate claiming arrear levies must clearly prove the basis of each disputed charge, especially where the account includes penalties, damage-related charges, and credit control costs rather than straightforward levy contributions. It also illustrates the adjudicator's investigative powers under section 51 and confirms that non-compliance by an applicant with a request for further participation or information can result in dismissal under section 53. The case highlights the procedural rigor expected in CSOS levy disputes and the limits of resolving substantial factual disputes on paper alone.