The Trustees of Monte Carlo Body Corporate v N P Mkhize

The applicant, the Trustees of Monte Carlo Body Corporate, brought an application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 against the respondent, Pretty N Mkhize, the owner of Unit 15 in the Monte Carlo scheme in Bellair, Durban. The body corporate, assisted by its managing agent Statio Properties and Management Services (Pty) Ltd, alleged that the respondent was in arrears with levies. The applicant stated that repeated reminders, notices, and a final letter of demand dated 7 July 2022 were sent without success. The applicant also explained that widespread non-payment of levies by owners had placed the scheme in financial difficulty, preventing maintenance and insurance and affecting the marketability of units. Payment-plan options were offered to owners to help reduce arrears, but these measures failed. The respondent did not file any response or submissions.

• Whether the applicant was entitled, under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act, to an order compelling the respondent to pay outstanding levies.
• Whether the evidence before the adjudicator established on a balance of probabilities that the levies claimed were due and payable by the respondent as owner of the unit.
• Whether, in the absence of any response from the respondent, the applicant had proved its claim for arrear levies.

The application was upheld. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant R43 449.15 within 30 days of the order. No order as to costs was made.

An owner in a sectional title scheme is legally obliged to pay levies as an incident of ownership, and where a body corporate proves on a balance of probabilities that levies are outstanding and payable, the CSOS may grant relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act directing payment of the arrears. In the absence of any contrary evidence from the owner, the body corporate's uncontested evidence may suffice to establish liability.

The adjudicator observed that non-payment of levies poses a serious risk to the financial viability of a scheme, may prevent maintenance and payment for services, and can negatively affect owners' ability to sell units because of the deteriorated condition of the complex. These remarks provide context for the importance of levy enforcement but were not strictly necessary to the dispositive finding on liability.

The matter is significant as a straightforward application of the CSOS dispute-resolution framework to enforce levy obligations in a sectional title scheme. It confirms the central South African law principle that the duty to pay levies is inseparable from unit ownership and that a body corporate may use CSOS adjudication to recover arrears where an owner defaults. It also illustrates the practical link between levy collection and the body corporate's statutory duties to maintain and administer the scheme.