Rayleigh Body Corporate v MD Ngcongo

The applicant, Rayleigh Body Corporate, is the body corporate of a registered sectional title scheme situated in Glenwood, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal. The respondent, MD Ngcongo, is the owner of unit 6 in the scheme and therefore a member of the community scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent failed to make regular levy payments due to the scheme. According to the applicant's August 2023 statement, the respondent owed R257 981.11, inclusive of interest. The applicant stated that requests for payment had been made, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees had resolved to pursue recovery through the Community Schemes Ombud Service. A breakdown of the contribution statement for unit 6 was submitted. The respondent disputed the calculation and validity of the amount claimed, but did not substantiate that challenge with supporting evidence.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 to order payment of outstanding 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 respondent may resist payment of levies by merely disputing their calculation or validity without substantiating the challenge.
• Whether a costs order should be made in the circumstances.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R257 981.11 in full on or before 30 April 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate may recover outstanding levy contributions and associated interest through a CSOS application under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act where it places sufficient evidence before the adjudicator showing that levies were validly raised and remain unpaid. An owner's bare, unsubstantiated challenge to the calculation or validity of the levies is insufficient to defeat the claim. Levy obligations arise from the body corporate's lawful resolutions under the STSMA, and such contributions are due and recoverable unless properly impugned on evidence.

The adjudicator observed that non-payment of levies can seriously destabilise a scheme and that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes because they fund maintenance, insurance, security, and preserve the collective interests and investments of owners. The adjudicator also remarked generally on the CSOS approach to costs, noting that parties ordinarily bear their own costs unless circumstances justify a costs order, particularly in matters falling under section 53 of the CSOS Act.

This determination affirms the enforceability of body corporate levies through the CSOS adjudication process under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act. It reinforces the principle in South African sectional title law that levies are essential to the functioning of common-interest schemes and that owners cannot avoid payment by raising bare or unsupported disputes about the charges. The case is also significant as an illustration of CSOS's role as a statutory forum for efficient recovery of arrear contributions by community schemes.