Rayleigh Body Corporate v B Ramsamuj

The applicant, Rayleigh Body Corporate, is the body corporate of a registered sectional title scheme in Glenwood, Durban. The respondent, Mrs B Ramsamuj, is the owner of a unit in the scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. The body corporate alleged that the respondent failed to pay levies validly raised by trustee resolution, resulting in arrears of R13 290.56, inclusive of interest, as reflected in the August 2023 statement. The respondent admitted withholding all or part of the levies in protest over alleged maintenance issues and also suggested that the amount claimed was disputed, but did not substantiate the challenge. Conciliation under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act failed, a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 28 September 2023, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 to order payment of arrear levy contributions
• Whether the body corporate had established on a balance of probabilities that the respondent owed arrear levies and interest in the amount claimed
• Whether a unit owner may lawfully withhold levy payments because of dissatisfaction with maintenance issues or a dispute about the wisdom or necessity of levies
• Whether any costs order should be made

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R13 290.56 in full on or before 30 April 2024. No order as to costs was made.

Levy contributions validly raised by a body corporate in terms of section 3(2) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act become due upon the relevant trustee resolution and are recoverable through the CSOS under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act. A unit owner is not entitled to withhold payment of levies because of dissatisfaction with maintenance issues or because the owner disputes the necessity, wisdom, or calculation of the levies without substantiating such challenge. Where the body corporate provides sufficient documentary proof of the debt and the owner fails to rebut it meaningfully, an order for payment should be granted on a balance of probabilities.

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that failure to pay can seriously destabilise a scheme and harm the collective interests and investments of owners. The adjudicator also made general remarks about costs under the CSOS Act, noting that parties will generally bear their own costs in section 54 adjudications and that costs orders are more commonly made in the circumstances contemplated by section 53. The judgment does not contain extensive obiter beyond these broader policy observations.

The decision reinforces a settled principle in South African sectional title and community schemes law: unit owners may not withhold levies as self-help in protest over maintenance complaints or other disputes with the body corporate. It also illustrates the CSOS's role as a statutory forum for levy recovery under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act and confirms the enforceability of levies and interest validly raised under the STSMA and management rules.