Kilov Body Corporate v Dr. Kgabo Maribana

The applicant, Kilov Body Corporate, is the body corporate of a residential sectional title scheme in Bela-Bela, Limpopo, represented by its managing agent pursuant to a trustee resolution dated 13 October 2023. The respondent, Dr. Kgabo Maribana, is the registered owner of units D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 and D12 in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levy contributions due in respect of these units since 2019, resulting in arrears of R330 602.92 inclusive of interest. A breakdown was provided for each unit. The applicant also alleged that the respondent had enclosed balconies forming part of exclusive use areas without prior approval from the trustees and without submitting plans, thereby extending the floor areas of the units and affecting participation quotas. The respondent did not respond to notices issued under section 43 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, and after conciliation failed, a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 20 October 2023 and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39 of the CSOS Act to determine the dispute.
• Whether the respondent was liable to pay arrear levy contributions claimed by the body corporate in the amount of R330 602.92.
• Whether interest on overdue levies could be charged in terms of the applicable management rules and trustee resolution.
• Whether the adjudicator could grant ancillary relief requiring the respondent to submit building plans for unauthorised alterations to the trustees and local authority.
• Whether a costs order should be made.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R330 602.92, with interest at 11.75% per annum, in 12 equal monthly instalments of R27 550.24 commencing on 1 March 2024 and continuing monthly until the full amount was paid, without affecting ongoing monthly levies. If the respondent defaulted, the full outstanding amount would immediately become due and payable. The respondent was also ordered, under section 54(3) of the CSOS Act, to submit proper building plans relating to the alterations to his units to the trustees for permission and approval on or before 29 February 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate is entitled under the STSMA and the CSOS Act to recover duly raised arrear levies and permissible interest from a unit owner through CSOS proceedings where it proves the indebtedness on a balance of probabilities. An owner cannot withhold levy payments because he disputes the wisdom or necessity of the levies. Although CSOS adjudicators are creatures of statute whose powers are confined to section 39 of the CSOS Act, they may grant ancillary and appropriate relief under section 54(3) where necessary in the interests of justice and connected to the dispute before them.

The adjudicator's remarks that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can destabilise a scheme were general observations explaining the policy importance of levy enforcement. The discussion that the respondent's balcony enclosures may require recalculation of participation quotas and regularisation through local authority approval was also ancillary to the main levy dispute. The comments on the usual approach to costs in section 54 proceedings were similarly explanatory rather than essential to the core decision.

The decision is significant within South African community schemes jurisprudence because it illustrates the CSOS's role in enforcing levy obligations in sectional title schemes and underscores the principle that owners may not withhold levies because of disagreements about scheme decisions. It also demonstrates the adjudicator's willingness to use section 54(3) to craft ancillary relief linked to unauthorised building alterations, while acknowledging that CSOS remains a statutory tribunal with powers confined to the CSOS Act. The case reinforces the centrality of levy compliance to the financial stability of sectional title schemes.