Mokoka Mmantho v Montrose Mews Body Corporate

The applicant, Ms Mmantho Mokoka, is the registered owner of Unit 19 in the Montrose Mews sectional title scheme. She brought a dispute-resolution application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under s 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. The dispute arose after investigations into a leak affecting neighbouring Unit 18. Around January 2023, the chairperson requested access to the applicant’s bedroom for a plumber to inspect and scan for the source of the leak. The report noted that a bath needed sealing and that an inspection plate should be removed to determine whether the trap or waste was leaking, but the report did not conclusively establish that the leak originated from the applicant’s unit. Despite this, an amount of R1000.50 was debited to the applicant’s levy account, together with interest, without her consent. The applicant sought two forms of relief: first, reversal of the R1000.50 debit and interest; second, an order compelling investigation and repair of the leak allegedly involving Unit 18. Conciliation failed on 27 November 2023, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the body corporate incorrectly or unreasonably debited the applicant’s levy account with R1000.50 and related interest without her consent, contrary to s 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act and reg 25(5) of the STSM Regulations.
• Whether the adjudicator could grant relief under s 39(6)(b) of the CSOS Act requiring investigation or repair of the leak where the evidence did not establish responsibility and the owner of Unit 18 had not been joined.
• Whether the applicant had placed sufficient facts before the adjudicator to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent body corporate was responsible for the leak-related repair issue.
• Whether non-joinder of the owner of Unit 18 and failure adequately to exhaust or demonstrate internal dispute-resolution steps prevented the granting of the repair-related relief.

The adjudicator ordered that: (a) the applicant’s relief concerning investigation/repair under paragraph 22(b) and s 39(6)(b) was dismissed; (b) the applicant’s relief under s 39(1)(c) succeeded; (c) the respondent must remove the debit of R1000.50, including any interest levied without the applicant’s consent, within 5 days of the order; (d) the respondent must issue the applicant with a revised itemised levy statement reflecting all debits and credits within 2 days after expiry of the initial 5-day period; and (e) no order as to costs was made.

A body corporate may not debit an owner’s levy account with an amount that is not a valid contribution or charge levied under the applicable legislation or rules unless the owner consents or the charge is authorised by a judgment or order; where no such consent or authority exists, the debit and associated interest must be reversed. Further, relief concerning repairs or maintenance under the CSOS Act cannot be granted where the evidence does not establish responsibility on a balance of probabilities and where a directly interested party has not been joined, since this would offend principles of natural justice.

The adjudicator made non-binding observations about the health dangers of damp and mould in residential properties, including references to mould spores and volatile organic compounds. The adjudicator also made general remarks on the respective maintenance responsibilities of bodies corporate and owners, and cited case law emphasizing CSOS as the primary forum for such disputes. These comments provided context but were not necessary to the dispositive findings.

This adjudication is significant in community schemes jurisprudence because it affirms that a body corporate cannot unilaterally load an owner’s levy account with amounts that are not properly authorised contributions or charges. It underscores the protection afforded by regulation 25(5) of the STSM Regulations and demonstrates CSOS’s role as the primary dispute-resolution forum for sectional title disputes. The decision is also important for showing that repair-related relief will not be granted where causation is unclear, the proper interested parties have not been joined, and the evidentiary foundation is inadequate.