Roland Forson v Trustees of Villa Relax 1 Body Corporate and Property Management Ignite SCoast

The applicant, Roland Forson, is the registered owner of Unit 1 in Villa Relax 1 Body Corporate in Margate, KwaZulu-Natal. He challenged increases reflected on his levy account, particularly common property electricity, water charges, and an overall levy increase. He alleged that between May and June his common property electricity charge rose sharply, then reduced in July, and rose again in August; he also alleged a substantial rise in water charges and questioned how a stated 10% levy increase resulted in the amount charged. He contended that the respondents failed to account properly for these increases and ignored his requests for supporting bills and explanations. The first respondent, the body corporate trustees, and the second respondent, the managing agent, opposed the application. They stated that the levy increase had been approved at the AGM, that the applicant attended the AGM via Zoom and agreed to the increase, and that the increase was justified mainly by the gardener's salary not having been budgeted for previously. They further explained that common property electricity covered more than one light, including three lights, a spotlight, an electric gate and an electric fence, and that Eskom and UGU tariff and billing fluctuations explained the changes in electricity and water charges. Supporting documents including the budget and AGM minutes were attached.

• Whether the contributions levied on the applicant were incorrectly determined or unreasonable under section 39(1)(c) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011.
• Whether the respondents had adequately accounted for the increases in levies, water charges and common property electricity charges.
• Whether the applicant proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the increments on his levy account should be removed or adjusted.
• Whether the levy increase was validly authorised by the body corporate at the AGM.

The application for relief under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act was dismissed. The relief sought by the applicant against the respondents was refused. No order as to costs was made.

Where a body corporate and/or managing agent can show, through budgets, AGM minutes and plausible billing explanations, that levy and utility-related increases were properly authorised and reasonably explained, an applicant seeking relief under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act fails unless he proves on a balance of probabilities that the contribution was incorrectly determined or unreasonable.

The adjudicator observed generally that increases in water and electricity tariffs are a real factor affecting everyone, including members of the scheme. The order also noted the statutory right of appeal under section 57 of the CSOS Act to the High Court on a question of law only. No substantial further obiter dicta appears in the judgment.

This decision illustrates the application of section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act to disputes about body corporate levies and utility-related contributions. It confirms that an applicant challenging levies must show, on a balance of probabilities, that the contribution was incorrectly determined or unreasonable. It also underscores the importance of AGM resolutions, budgets and supporting records in justifying increases imposed by a body corporate or its managing agent.