David Phahlamohlaka OBO Royal Reef West Body Corporate v SS Mohamed

The applicant, David Phahlamohlaka, acting on behalf of the trustees of Royal Reef West Body Corporate, brought a dispute-resolution application under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against SS Mohamed, the registered owner of section 224 in the Royal Reef West sectional title scheme in Boksburg, Gauteng. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed over time to pay levy contributions due in respect of his unit. As at 14 August 2023, the arrear amount claimed was R16 489.85, stated to include interest on the August 2023 statement, although the applicant later indicated that it did not seek further interest to be added. The body corporate contended that internal remedies had been exhausted and that the trustees had resolved to pursue recovery through CSOS. The matter first went through the statutory process, and after conciliation failed, a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 13 September 2023. The respondent did not respond to the allegations despite notice and an opportunity to do so.

• Whether the Community Schemes Ombud Service had jurisdiction under section 39 of the CSOS Act to determine a dispute concerning unpaid levy contributions in a sectional title scheme.
• Whether the body corporate, through its authorised representative, was entitled to seek an order under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levies.
• Whether the evidence placed before the adjudicator was sufficient, on a balance of probabilities, to justify an order compelling the respondent to pay R16 489.85 in arrear levy contributions.
• Whether any costs order should be made in the circumstances.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions to the applicant in the amount of R16 489.85 in full by 29 February 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme 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 that the levies were validly raised and remain unpaid. An owner, as a member of the scheme, is obliged to pay levy contributions, and non-payment undermines the functioning of the scheme. In the absence of a substantive response or contrary evidence from the owner, documentary proof of the arrears may suffice on a balance of probabilities to justify an adjudication order for payment.

The adjudicator remarked generally that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can seriously destabilise a scheme and prejudice the collective interests of owners. The adjudicator also noted for completeness that Management Rule 21(3)(c) permits the charging of interest on overdue amounts pursuant to a written trustee resolution, although additional interest was not sought in this case. The discussion of costs, including the observation that costs orders are more commonly made in matters dismissed under section 53 rather than under section 54 adjudications, was also ancillary to the core determination.

This decision reinforces the statutory enforceability of levy obligations in sectional title and community scheme governance under the CSOS framework. It illustrates the role of CSOS as an accessible forum for bodies corporate to recover unpaid levies without immediate resort to ordinary court litigation. The order also affirms the importance in South African sectional title law of prompt levy payment for the financial stability of schemes, and reiterates that owners cannot unilaterally withhold levies because they dispute the underlying decisions of the body corporate.