Mariza Pretorius Obo Royal Heights Body Corporate v S Ngqosana

The applicant, Royal Heights Body Corporate (represented by Mariza Pretorius of the managing agent LKPM), applied to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) for an order directing the respondent, S Ngqosana, the registered owner of unit 11 in the residential sectional title scheme (SS 266/2020) at Spruit Street, Kuils River, Cape Town, to pay outstanding levy contributions. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levies for a period of time, accruing a total debt of R14,869.09, inclusive of interest at 15.5% per annum. The respondent did not respond to the notice under section 43 of the CSOS Act, and all internal remedies had been exhausted. The matter was referred to an adjudicator after conciliation failed, and the adjudicator held a hearing on 10 January 2024.

• Whether the respondent is liable to pay the outstanding levy contributions and interest under the CSOS Act and the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act (STSMA).
• Whether the adjudicator may grant an order for payment of levies under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act when the applicant has proved its case on a balance of probabilities.
• Whether the body corporate may charge interest on overdue levies in accordance with Management Rule 21(3)(c) and the National Credit Act.
• Whether any costs order should be made against either party.

The adjudicator ordered the respondent, S Ngqosana, to pay the arrear levy contributions of R14,869.09 to the applicant, Royal Heights Body Corporate, in full on or before 29 February 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate, acting through a valid trustee resolution, is entitled to recover unpaid levies and charge interest under the CSOS Act and Management Rule 21(3)(c); where the applicant proves the debt on a balance of probabilities, the adjudicator must grant an order for payment under section 39(1)(e).

The adjudicator referred to the decision in The Body Corporate of Fish Eagle v Group Twelve Investments (Pty) Ltd, noting that a member cannot withhold levies on the basis of disputing the necessity of the levy. The judgment also observed that costs are generally borne by the parties in CSOS adjudications unless the matter is frivolous, vexatious, or the applicant fails to comply with procedural requirements.

The case confirms the enforceability of levy contributions and interest under the CSOS Act and the STSMA, illustrating that a body corporate can obtain a binding order through the CSOS adjudication process when internal remedies are exhausted. It underscores the importance of levy compliance for the financial stability of sectional title schemes and provides precedent on the adjudicator’s discretion regarding costs.