Dimakatso Kutumela obo The Nicol Body Corporate v Gerhard Egbert Dippenaar

The Nicol Body Corporate, a sectional title scheme situated at Skeen Boulevard, Bedfordview, Germiston, authorised Dimakatso Kutumela of Whitfield Property Management (Pty) Ltd to bring a CSOS application on its behalf. The respondent, Gerhard Egbert Dippenaar, is the registered owner of unit 44B in the scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levy contributions due to the scheme. It claimed arrear levies in the amount of R19 659.76, including interest charged at 2% per month, and submitted a breakdown of the contribution statement in support of the claim. Internal remedies were said to have been exhausted and the trustees resolved to proceed through CSOS. The respondent did not file a response despite being given notice in terms of section 43 of the CSOS Act and further opportunity to respond. A certificate of non-resolution was issued on 18 September 2023 after conciliation failed, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 to determine a dispute concerning unpaid levy contributions.
• Whether the applicant body corporate was entitled to an order compelling the respondent owner to pay arrear levy contributions.
• Whether the evidence placed before the adjudicator was sufficient, on a balance of probabilities, to justify the levy recovery order in the absence of a response from the respondent.
• Whether any order as to costs should be made in the circumstances.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R19 659.76 in full on or before 31 March 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme is statutorily empowered and obliged to raise levies and recover them from unit owners. A dispute concerning unpaid levy contributions falls within CSOS jurisdiction under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act. Where the applicant body corporate places sufficient evidence before the adjudicator establishing the levies due, and there is no substantive response rebutting the claim, an adjudicator may grant an order compelling payment of the arrear contributions. An owner is not entitled to withhold levies merely because the owner disputes the necessity or financial wisdom of their imposition.

The adjudicator made broader observations that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can seriously destabilise a scheme by undermining maintenance, repair, insurance, security and the collective investment of owners. The adjudicator also commented generally that costs orders are not ordinarily made in section 54 adjudications, save in circumstances such as frivolous or vexatious applications under section 53, which were not present here.

This decision reinforces the principle in South African community schemes law that body corporates may use the CSOS dispute-resolution mechanism to recover unpaid levies from owners. It underscores the central importance of levy payments to the financial sustainability of sectional title schemes and confirms that, where a body corporate proves the debt with adequate documentary evidence, CSOS may grant payment orders on the papers, especially where the owner does not respond. The case also reflects the practical operation of section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act as a relatively accessible enforcement mechanism for levy arrears.