Elma Daleen Strydom obo Malacite Crest Body Corporate v GP Mpilo

The applicant, Elma Daleen Strydom of Vhumbanani Property Management Solutions, acted as managing agent and authorised representative on behalf of the trustees of Malacite Crest Body Corporate, a residential sectional title scheme in Fleurhof Extension 26, Roodepoort, Gauteng. The respondent, GP Mpilo, was the registered owner of unit 96 and therefore a member of the body corporate. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed over a period of time to pay levy contributions due in respect of the unit. As at September 2023, the arrear amount was R47 142.29, inclusive of interest calculated at 10.5% per annum. The applicant stated that requests for payment had been made, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees had resolved to pursue recovery through the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS). The respondent did not file a response to the dispute despite being notified and afforded an opportunity to do so. Following failed conciliation, and the issuing of a certificate of non-resolution on 12 December 2023, the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether CSOS had jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 to determine the dispute and order payment of arrear levies.
• Whether the body corporate had established on a balance of probabilities that the respondent owed arrear levy contributions in the amount of R47 142.29.
• Whether the body corporate was entitled to recover interest on the overdue levy amounts.
• Whether any costs order should be made in the adjudication.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R47 142.29 in full on or before 30 April 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate may obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levy contributions where it places sufficient evidence before the adjudicator showing the amount due and the basis on which the levies were raised, and the claim is proved on a balance of probabilities. Levy obligations in sectional title schemes are enforceable as part of the statutory scheme governance framework, and overdue amounts may attract interest where authorised under the applicable management rules and trustee resolution. A member is not entitled to withhold payment of levies merely because the member disputes the necessity or financial wisdom of the levy decision.

The adjudicator made broader observations that non-payment of levies can seriously destabilise a scheme and that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes because they fund maintenance, insurance, security and other communal obligations. The adjudicator also commented generally that costs orders are more commonly made in section 53 dismissals for frivolous or misconceived matters, whereas parties in section 54 adjudications are generally expected to bear their own costs. No further distinct obiter remarks appear from the text.

This adjudication reinforces the enforceability of body corporate levy obligations through the CSOS dispute-resolution mechanism. It underscores that levy contributions are central to the viability of sectional title schemes and that owners cannot evade payment by simply remaining silent or by disputing the desirability of the levies. The matter also illustrates the practical use of section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act as a cost-effective statutory mechanism for community schemes to recover arrear contributions without resorting immediately to ordinary civil litigation.