Esau v Urban Index and Marinda Court Body Corporate

The applicant, Judy Joan Esau, is the registered owner of unit 9 in Marinda Court, a sectional title scheme in Bellville, Cape Town. After purchasing the unit about two years earlier, she was required to pay what she regarded as high ordinary levies and a special levy. She raised her concerns with the scheme's trustees but remained dissatisfied. She then brought an application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) in terms of section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, seeking relief under section 39(1)(c) on the basis that her levies should be reduced and the special levy removed from her account. The first respondent, Urban Index, was cited as the managing agent of the second respondent, Marinda Court Body Corporate. The respondents contended that all levies and special levies had been lawfully approved at trustees' meetings and/or annual general meetings, and that the applicant had failed to pay levies for years, with legal action for arrears contemplated.

• Whether the applicant established grounds under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act for an order declaring that the levies or special levy were incorrectly determined or unreasonable.
• Whether the body corporate had lawful authority under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 to raise ordinary levies and special levies by resolution.
• Whether the applicant proved, on a balance of probabilities, that she was entitled to a reduction of levies and removal of the special levy from her account.

The application for relief under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) as misconceived. No order as to costs was made.

A unit owner in a sectional title scheme is, by virtue of ownership, a member of the body corporate and is obliged to pay ordinary and special levies validly raised in accordance with the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011. Relief under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act will not be granted unless the applicant proves that the contribution was incorrectly determined, unreasonable, or payable in an unreasonable manner. Where the body corporate shows that levies were imposed pursuant to lawful resolutions, and the applicant provides no sufficient basis to impugn them, the application must fail.

The adjudicator set out general observations on evidentiary assessment, including that only relevant evidence should be considered and that the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities. The order also recorded the statutory right of appeal under section 57 of the CSOS Act, namely that an appeal lies to the High Court only on a question of law within 30 days. Beyond these procedural remarks, the judgment contains little by way of developed obiter dicta.

The decision illustrates the limited scope of CSOS relief under section 39(1)(c) where an owner merely disputes the amount of levies without showing that they were incorrectly determined or unreasonable in law or fact. It reaffirms the statutory obligation of sectional title owners to pay levies and special levies validly raised by the body corporate under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act. The matter is also a practical example of CSOS adjudicators relying on the statutory framework and existing High Court authority to uphold levy resolutions where no substantive challenge to their validity is established.