Johanna Petronella Mitchell obo Wilkruinpark Body Corporate v SM Kies

The applicant, Johanna Petronella Mitchell of Ralcoprop (Pty) Ltd, acted as the authorised representative of Wilkruinpark Body Corporate pursuant to a trustee resolution dated 31 January 2023. The dispute concerned unit 31 in the Wilkruinpark sectional title scheme in Ian Street, La Hoff, Klerksdorp, North West, owned by the respondent, SM Kies. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levy contributions due to the scheme, resulting in arrears of R8,634.92. The applicant lodged a dispute-resolution application with the Community Schemes Ombud Service on 21 August 2023 under s 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, seeking an order compelling payment of the outstanding levies. A contribution statement breaking down the arrears for unit 31 was submitted. The respondent did not respond to the application or later invitations to make submissions, despite notice in terms of s 43 of the CSOS Act. A certificate of non-resolution was issued on 18 October 2023 and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under the CSOS Act to determine the levy dispute between the body corporate and the unit owner.
• Whether the applicant, acting on behalf of the body corporate, was properly authorised to bring the application.
• Whether the respondent, as owner of unit 31, was liable for arrear levy contributions in the amount of R8,634.92.
• Whether the evidence placed before the adjudicator was sufficient on a balance of probabilities to justify an order under s 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether any costs order should be made.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R8,634.92 in full on or before 31 March 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate, acting through an authorised representative, may obtain an order under s 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levies where it proves on a balance of probabilities that the respondent is a unit owner liable for contributions and that the levies were validly raised in terms of the body corporate's statutory powers under the STSMA. In the absence of rebutting evidence, a properly supported contribution statement is sufficient to justify such an order. A unit owner may not withhold levies on the basis of disagreement with the levy decision itself.

The adjudicator observed generally that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes because they fund maintenance, insurance, security and other common expenses, and that non-payment can seriously destabilise a scheme and prejudice all owners. The adjudicator also commented that cost orders are generally not made in s 54 adjudications unless circumstances akin to those contemplated in s 53 are present.

This adjudication confirms the CSOS's role as an accessible statutory forum for the recovery of unpaid levy contributions in sectional title and other community schemes. It reinforces the principle that levy obligations are enforceable through CSOS processes and that non-payment threatens the financial viability of shared-property schemes. The order also reflects the established South African position that owners cannot unilaterally withhold levies because they dispute the underlying decision to impose them.