Directors of Albertsdal Leopards Rest HOA v L Seitlheko and P Kholokholo

The applicant, the Directors of Albertsdal Leopards Rest Homeowners Association, a non-profit company and community scheme under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, brought a CSOS application against the first and second respondents, the registered co-owners of unit 4051 in the scheme. The applicant alleged that despite repeated written demands, the respondents failed to pay monthly levies and ancillary charges, including CSOS levies, due under the scheme’s Memorandum of Incorporation. The applicant produced a levy statement showing arrears of R1 667.76 as at 9 April 2024. The respondents did not respond to the CSOS correspondence and filed no substantive submissions. The matter was therefore adjudicated on the papers.

• Whether the respondents, as co-owners and members of the homeowners association, were liable to pay the outstanding levies and ancillary charges claimed by the applicant.
• Whether the applicant had proved, on a balance of probabilities, the amount of R1 667.76 as owing by the respondents.
• Whether relief should be granted under section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 for payment of contributions or other amounts due to the scheme.
• Whether any payment arrangement should be incorporated into the adjudication order.

The application was granted. The respondents were declared jointly and severally indebted to the applicant in the amount of R1 667.76 in respect of levies and ancillary charges as at 9 April 2024. They were ordered to pay that amount in two equal monthly instalments of R833.88, the first on or before 1 May 2024 and the second on the first day of the succeeding month. No interest would accrue during the two-month payment period. The order did not affect the respondents’ ongoing obligation to pay regular monthly levies and ancillary charges. If they defaulted on any instalment, the full outstanding amount would become immediately due and payable. There was no order as to costs.

Where a homeowners association proves by documentary evidence, on a balance of probabilities, that registered owners in the scheme are indebted for levies and ancillary charges due under the scheme’s Memorandum of Incorporation or rules, and the owners provide no answering version, the adjudicator may grant relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act ordering payment of the arrears. Owners who purchase property in a community scheme are contractually bound by the scheme rules and are obliged to contribute levies necessary for the scheme’s administration and maintenance.

The adjudicator’s remarks that levies are the 'lifeblood' of an HOA, that directors cannot perform their functions without owners’ contributions, and that defaulting owners are effectively subsidised by compliant owners are persuasive observations explaining the importance of levy enforcement, but they were not strictly necessary to the dispositive finding on the respondents’ indebtedness. The payment arrangement allowing two instalments without interest for two months was also a discretionary case-management feature rather than a general legal rule.

The decision is significant as a straightforward application of the CSOS enforcement mechanism for recovery of arrear levies in a homeowners association. It reaffirms that HOA members are contractually bound by the scheme’s constitutive documents and rules, and that CSOS may grant effective financial relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act where levy indebtedness is proved on the papers. The order also illustrates the practical use of structured instalment payments in CSOS adjudications while preserving the scheme’s right to immediate payment upon default.