CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Executive Committee of Albertsdal Leopards Rest Homeowners' Association (ALRHOA) v Fanayi Jacquelene Tshabalala

CitationCSOS Adjudication Order Ref: CSOS5571/GP/23 (28 November 2023)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Community Schemes LawProperty Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Homeowners' Association Law
Contract Law
Financial/Levy Recovery under the CSOS Act

Facts of the Case

The applicant, the Executive Committee of Albertsdal Leopards Rest Homeowners' Association (ALRHOA), is the governing homeowners' association of the estate. The respondent, Fanayi Jacquelene Tshabalala, is the registered owner of unit 4576 in the scheme. ALRHOA brought an application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 seeking relief under section 39(1)(e) for payment of arrear levies. The applicant alleged that, under its Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI), all members are obliged to pay monthly levies in advance and may not withhold payment. It initially stated that the respondent owed R4 373.52 in arrears, despite SMS reminders, notices, letters of demand, and attempts to conclude a repayment agreement. In response, the respondent did not dispute liability but offered to pay R200 per month until the arrears were settled; that proposal was rejected by the applicant. By the time final written submissions were lodged, the applicant's levy statement reflected an increased outstanding amount of R5 558.92 as at 9 November 2023.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the respondent, as owner and member of the homeowners' association, was bound by the ALRHOA MOI and liable for payment of levies.
  • Whether the applicant had proved, on a balance of probabilities, the amount of arrear levies owing by the respondent.
  • Whether the adjudicator could grant an order for payment of future monthly contributions in addition to arrears under the CSOS application as framed.
  • What payment terms should be ordered in relation to the established arrear amount.

Judicial Outcome

The application was granted in part. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant R5 558.92 in three equal instalments of R1 852.97, with the first payment due on 15 December 2023 and the remaining payments due on 1 January 2024 and 1 February 2024. The order stated that no interest would accrue during the allowed payment period, but if the respondent failed to pay as directed, the full amount would become immediately payable. The adjudicator refused the applicant's request for an order for payment of future monthly contributions. No order as to costs was made.

Ratio Decidendi

A registered owner in a homeowners' association becomes bound by the scheme's MOI and applicable conduct or administrative rules, and is liable to pay levies in accordance with those instruments. In CSOS proceedings under section 39(1)(e), where the association proves arrear levies on a balance of probabilities and the owner does not provide a substantive defence disputing liability, an adjudicator may order payment of the arrears. However, relief is confined to what is properly sought and established within the CSOS Act, and an order for future contributions will not be granted merely because ongoing levies ordinarily remain payable.

Obiter Dicta

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of a homeowners' association and that directors cannot perform their duties without funds from members. The decision also noted generally that, although the order did not grant specific relief for future levies, the respondent remained obliged to continue paying the usual regular monthly levies and ancillary charges. The discussion of the contractual nature of community scheme rules, with reference to Mount Edgecombe and BAE Estates, included broader remarks on owners voluntarily or necessarily accepting the governance regime of such schemes.

Legal Significance

The matter is a useful CSOS levy-recovery decision confirming that owners in homeowners' associations are bound by the scheme's constitutive documents and may be compelled through CSOS adjudication to pay arrear levies. It also illustrates the adjudicator's approach to balancing enforcement with practicality by allowing instalment payments, while at the same time limiting relief to what is properly claimed and proved under section 39 of the CSOS Act. The decision reinforces the importance of levies to the functioning of community schemes and the enforceability of HOA rules and MOI obligations in South African community scheme governance.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Community Schemes Law cases

  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • Abrahm Bore v The Trustees of Loeries Park Body CorporateCSOS9164/GP/22 (Adjudication Order, 25 July 2022)
  • Agostini obo Firlands Park Home Owners' Association v Trustees for the time being of Rory Bamber TrustCSOS Adjudication Order Ref: CSOS7311/WC/23 (7 December 2023)
  • Ahmed Sadeck Mansoor obo Al Zakhura v Mont Blanc Body CorporateCSOS5288/KZN/22; adjudication order dated 13 January 2023
  • Akasia Body Corporate v Matodzi MukwevhoCSOS 10243/GP/23 (Adjudication Order, 11 April 2024)
  • Akasia Body Corporate v MF & H MashiyaCSOS 10233/GP/23 (Adjudication Order, 11 April 2024)
  • Akasia Body Corporate v RFL RodriquesCSOS 10242/GP/23 (Adjudication Order, 11 April 2024)

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97