Directors of Albertsdal Leopards Rest HOA v Mahigo Desiree Nyuswa

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 dispute-resolution application against the respondent, Mahigo Desiree Nyuswa, the registered owner of unit 6025 in the scheme. The HOA alleged that the respondent had failed to pay monthly levies and ancillary charges despite written demands. The amount claimed, supported by a levy statement, was R4 527.70 as at 12 January 2024. The respondent did not respond to correspondence from CSOS, filed no substantive submissions, and sought no relief. The matter was referred directly to adjudication on the papers after the Ombud concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of negotiated settlement.

• Whether the respondent, as a member and registered owner in the homeowners association, was liable to pay the levies and ancillary charges claimed by the applicant.
• Whether the applicant proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was indebted in the amount of R4 527.70 as at 12 January 2024.
• Whether an order under section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 should be granted for payment of the outstanding contribution or other amount.

The application was granted. The respondent was declared indebted to the applicant in the amount of R4 527.70 in respect of levies and ancillary charges as at 12 January 2024, and was ordered to pay that amount in three equal monthly instalments of R1 509.23, commencing on or before 1 May 2024, with the remaining instalments due on the first day of each succeeding month. No interest would accrue during the three-month payment period. The order did not affect the respondent's ongoing obligation to pay regular monthly levies and ancillary charges. On default, the full outstanding amount would become immediately due and payable. No costs order was made.

A homeowners association, as a community scheme under the CSOS Act, is entitled under section 39(1)(e) to obtain an order for payment of unpaid levies and ancillary charges where it proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the registered owner is bound by the scheme's governance documents and is indebted in the amount claimed. Membership obligations in an HOA are contractual in nature, and owners who purchase within the scheme are bound by its rules, including levy obligations.

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of an HOA and that directors cannot perform their functions without owners' contributions. The adjudicator also remarked that defaulting owners are effectively subsidised by compliant owners. These comments explain the policy importance of levy enforcement but were not themselves necessary to the determination of liability. The instalment arrangement and suspension of interest for three months were also discretionary ameliorative measures rather than statements of general principle.

This adjudication is a practical application of the CSOS dispute-resolution framework to levy recovery in homeowners associations. It reaffirms that owners in community schemes are bound by the scheme's constitutive documents and are obliged to pay levies and ancillary charges. The matter also illustrates that, in the absence of a response from the owner, a properly supported levy statement may be sufficient to establish indebtedness on a balance of probabilities. It is significant for community scheme governance because it underscores the centrality of levy collection to the functioning of HOAs and the enforceability of those obligations through CSOS adjudication.