Lebudi v The Trustees of Prosperity Mews

The applicant, Busisiwe Prescilla Lebudi, is the registered owner of Unit 26 in the Prosperity Mews sectional title scheme in Grobler Park, Johannesburg. She brought an urgent application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, seeking an order compelling the respondent to reinstate water and electricity supply to her unit, alleging that the respondent had unlawfully terminated or caused the termination of those services. The respondent raised preliminary objections, stating that the scheme had been placed under administration in terms of section 16 of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011, with Confiance Administrative Solutions (Pty) Ltd N.O. appointed by High Court order on 20 April 2022 under case number 2022/7469. According to that court order, the administrator was authorised, among other things, to levy current and arrear contributions and to link access to prepaid water and electricity services to payment of current and arrear charges due to the scheme. The respondent contended that the dispute had already been regulated by the High Court order, that CSOS lacked jurisdiction, and that the matter was res judicata.

• Whether CSOS had jurisdiction to determine a dispute concerning restoration of water and electricity where a prior High Court order governed the administration of the scheme.
• Whether the dispute was res judicata because the relevant issues had already been adjudicated or regulated under Johannesburg High Court case number 2022/7469.
• Whether CSOS could effectively suspend, stay, rescind, or override the effect of the High Court order appointing the administrator and authorising enforcement measures linked to arrear levies.
• Whether the applicant was entitled to an order compelling reinstatement of water and electricity supply to her unit.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act. No order was made compelling reinstatement of the applicant's water or electricity supply.

Where a sectional title scheme is subject to a prior High Court administration order that regulates the administrator's powers in relation to levy recovery and access to services, CSOS lacks jurisdiction to determine an application that would effectively undermine or contradict that order. In such circumstances, the dispute is treated as res judicata or otherwise beyond CSOS's competence, and the application may be dismissed without considering the substantive relief sought.

The adjudicator recorded that termination or reduction of services to a section without a court order has always been unlawful, irrespective of body corporate rules, and that levy disputes should ordinarily be pursued in the appropriate forum. However, these remarks were not the basis of the final decision because the adjudicator ultimately held that a valid High Court order authorised the administrator's conduct and that CSOS lacked jurisdiction.

The matter is significant for community schemes practice because it illustrates the limits of CSOS adjudicative jurisdiction where a High Court order already governs the administration of a sectional title scheme. It underscores that CSOS will not entertain proceedings that would effectively revisit, suspend, or contradict an existing High Court order, and that disputes already determined or regulated by such an order may be treated as res judicata. It also highlights the legal consequences of administration orders under section 16 of the STSMA in relation to levy collection and scheme management powers.