Directors of Albertsdal Leopards Rest HOA v SS Ndlovu

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 (CSOS Act), brought an application against the respondent, SS Ndlovu, the registered owner of unit 5954 in the scheme. The HOA alleged that despite repeated written demands, the respondent failed to pay monthly levies and ancillary charges due under the scheme’s Memorandum of Incorporation. The outstanding amount was R4 599.09 as at 16 February 2024, supported by a levy statement. The respondent did not respond to correspondence from CSOS and filed no substantive opposition. The matter was determined on the papers under the CSOS adjudication process.

• Whether the respondent, as owner of a unit within the HOA, was liable to pay outstanding levies and ancillary charges claimed by the applicant.
• Whether the applicant had proved on a balance of probabilities the respondent’s indebtedness in the sum of R4 599.09.
• Whether relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act should be granted for payment of contributions or other amounts due to the community scheme.
• What order should be made regarding the manner and timing of payment.

The application succeeded. The adjudicator declared that the respondent was indebted to the applicant in the amount of R4 599.09 for levies and ancillary charges as at 16 February 2024. The respondent was ordered to pay that amount to the applicant in three equal monthly instalments of R1 533.03, the first payment due on or before 1 March 2024 and the remaining two 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. If the respondent defaulted on any instalment, the full outstanding amount would immediately become due and payable. No costs order was made.

An owner within a homeowners association who is bound by the scheme’s Memorandum of Incorporation and rules is obliged to pay levies and ancillary charges when due. Where the HOA proves, on a balance of probabilities, through its governance documents and account statements that arrear levies are owing, and the owner provides no contrary evidence, an adjudicator may grant payment relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of an HOA and that directors cannot perform their duties without contributions from owners. The adjudicator further remarked that owners who default on levies are effectively subsidised by owners who pay diligently. These comments support the reasoning but are broader policy observations rather than strictly necessary to the order.

The decision illustrates the CSOS’s role in enforcing levy obligations in homeowners associations and confirms that unpaid levies constitute a financial dispute for which section 39(1)(e) relief may be granted. It reinforces the South African legal principle that HOA membership obligations are contractual and binding on property owners who elect to buy into such schemes. The case is also a practical example of paper-based adjudication under the CSOS framework where a respondent fails to oppose the claim.