Kilov Body Corporate v Dr Kgabo Maribana

Kilov Body Corporate, a sectional title development (SS840/96) in Bela-Bela, Limpopo, represented by its managing agent, applied to the Community Schemes Ombud Service for adjudication against Dr Kgabo Maribana, the registered owner of units D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 and D12. The applicant alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levy contributions for those units since 2019, amounting to a total of R330,602.92 (including interest). The applicant also alleged that the respondent had made unauthorised extensions to the exclusive‑use balconies of the units, without the required consent or submission of building plans. The respondent did not respond to the notice under section 43 of the CSOS Act. The matter was referred to adjudication under sections 48‑51 of the CSOS Act, and the adjudicator heard written submissions on 24 January 2024.

• Whether the respondent is liable to pay the outstanding levy contributions under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the adjudicator may order the respondent to submit building plans for the alleged unauthorised balcony extensions.
• Whether the adjudicator has authority to order payment in instalments with interest and to make ancillary orders under section 54 of the CSOS Act.

1. The respondent is ordered to pay the outstanding levy contributions of R330,602.92 in twelve equal monthly instalments of R27,550.24, with interest at 11.75% per annum, commencing 1 March 2024. 2. If the respondent defaults, the full amount becomes immediately payable. 3. The respondent must submit proper building plans for the alleged balcony extensions to the trustee committee on or before 29 February 2024. 4. No order as to costs.

Under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act, an adjudicator may order the payment of outstanding levy contributions when the applicant proves liability on a balance of probabilities; the adjudicator may also order the respondent to submit building plans to regularise unauthorised alterations, pursuant to the prescribed management regulations governing community schemes.

The adjudicator noted that only relevant evidence should be considered, emphasized the vital role of levies as the ‘lifeblood’ of shared‑living schemes, referenced the Fish Eagle case for the principle that members cannot withhold levies on the basis of dispute, and explained that costs are ordinarily borne by the parties unless the application is frivolous or vexatious.

The case illustrates the scope of the Community Schemes Ombud Service’s adjudicatory powers under the CSOS Act to enforce levy payments and to compel compliance with scheme rules concerning unauthorised alterations. It reinforces that body corporates can recover arrears and that adjudicators may order ancillary compliance measures, thereby strengthening the financial stability of sectional title schemes and upholding the rule of law in community scheme governance.