The applicant, Mosidi Ramagaga, was the occupier of unit 17 and acted under a signed mandate on behalf of Neo Ramagaga, the registered owner of unit 17 in the Southfork Body Corporate scheme in Johannesburg. The unit was registered into the owner's name on 6 March 2023. On 20 March 2023, the applicant received a levy statement reflecting a charge of R3,395.35 for February 2023, a period before transfer of ownership. The applicant contended that this amount related to a period before the new owner acquired the unit and should instead have been charged to the previous owner. The respondent body corporate failed to file submissions or explain the basis of the charge despite being invited to do so. The applicant sought an order under s 39(1)(c) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 declaring the contribution incorrectly determined or unreasonable and directing that the charge be removed from the levy account.
The relief sought by the applicant was granted. The respondent was ordered to remove the charge from unit 17's levy statement and to issue the applicant with a revised statement within 14 days of the order. No order as to costs was made.
A successor owner in a sectional title scheme is liable for levies only from the date ownership passes, including pro rata contributions from that date as contemplated in s 3(2) of the STSMA; a body corporate may not lawfully debit the owner's account with levies or other charges relating to a period prior to transfer, or with unauthorised amounts not permitted by the STSMA, the prescribed management rules, consent, or a judgment/order. Where the body corporate fails to justify such a charge, the charge may be set aside and removed under s 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act.
The adjudicator observed, more broadly, that apart from ordinary and special levies, interest, legal fees, and reasonable photocopy fees for inspection of documents, other charges such as penalty, administrative, or debt-collection fees are generally not authorised unless permitted by the scheme's conduct or management rules. This discussion was not strictly necessary to decide the pre-transfer levy issue because the impugned amount was primarily rejected as an unexplained pre-transfer charge.
The decision confirms, within the CSOS adjudicative context, the established principle in South African sectional titles law that levy liability attaches to ownership and generally cannot be imposed retrospectively on a successor owner for a period before transfer. It also reinforces that body corporates must be able to justify charges debited to members' accounts and may not impose unauthorised amounts outside the STSMA, prescribed rules, consent, or a court/adjudicative order. The matter illustrates the protective role of the CSOS in resolving levy disputes where a body corporate fails to account for charges.