Executive Committee of Albertsdal Leopards Rest HOA v JS Mokati

The applicant, the Executive Committee of Albertsdal Leopards Rest Homeowners Association, a non-profit company and community scheme under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, brought an application against the respondent, JS Mokati, the registered owner of unit 5586 in the scheme. The HOA alleged that despite written demands, the respondent failed to pay monthly levies and ancillary charges, including CSOS levies, due under the scheme's Memorandum of Incorporation. The applicant submitted a statement of account showing arrears of R1 843.76 as at 14 February 2024. The respondent did not file any response or further submissions. The matter was adjudicated on the papers under the CSOS Act and the applicable Practice Directive.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction to determine the dispute as a community scheme financial dispute under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the respondent, as a member and owner in the HOA, was contractually and legally obliged to pay levies and ancillary charges in terms of the scheme's Memorandum of Incorporation.
• Whether the applicant proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was indebted to it in the amount of R1 843.76.
• What payment order should be made in respect of the arrear levies and ancillary charges.

The application was granted. The respondent was declared indebted to the applicant in the amount of R1 843.76 for levies and ancillary charges as at 14 February 2024, and was ordered to pay that amount in two equal monthly instalments of R921.88, commencing on or before 1 March 2024, with the second instalment due on the first day of the succeeding month. No interest would accrue during the two-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 amount would become immediately due and payable. No costs order was made.

A homeowners association may obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for unpaid levies and ancillary charges where it proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the owner is bound by the scheme's governing documents and is in arrears. Membership obligations in an HOA, including levy payments, are contractual and enforceable against an owner who purchased property in the scheme and thereby agreed to be bound by its rules and Memorandum of Incorporation.

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of an HOA, that the directors cannot perform their duties without owners' contributions, and that defaulting owners are effectively subsidised by compliant owners. These remarks explain the policy rationale for enforcing levy obligations but were not strictly necessary to the determination of the respondent's indebtedness.

The matter illustrates the CSOS's role in efficiently enforcing levy obligations within homeowners associations through paper-based adjudication. It confirms that HOA members are bound by the scheme's constitutive documents and that arrear levies may be recovered through section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act. The order also reflects the practical approach of CSOS adjudicators in granting payment arrangements while maintaining the enforceability of community scheme financial obligations.