CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Route 82 Homeowners' Association v T Washoma

CitationCSOS 2715/GP/23
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Community Schemes Ombud Service Act No.9 of 2011
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in

Facts of the Case

The Route 82 Homeowners' Association (R82HOA) is a community scheme established under the Companies Act 71 of 2008, with T Washoma as a member owning unit 116 in the scheme. R82HOA requested an adjudication order for the payment of arrear levies from Washoma amounting to R7,120.67, including interest at 1.25% per month. Washoma failed to respond to initial notices and subsequent opportunities provided by CSOS.

Legal Issues

  • Whether T Washoma is liable for the payment of arrear levies as a member of Route 82 Homeowners' Association
  • If so, whether an order should be granted in terms of section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act No.9 of 2011

Judicial Outcome

An order was granted for T Washoma to pay the arrears of R7,120.67 by 29 February 2024. No costs were awarded to either party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court established that a member of a community scheme is liable for levies as determined by the association's MOI, and failure to pay can lead to an order being granted in terms of section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.

Obiter Dicta

The court noted that non-payment of levies can destabilize a scheme and negatively affect all members' collective interests. It also stated that parties are generally expected to cover their own costs, with cost orders only issued in specific circumstances.

Legal Significance

This case highlights the enforcement mechanisms available under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act for community schemes and emphasizes the importance of members adhering to their financial obligations within such schemes.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Community Schemes Ombud Service Act No.9 of 2011 cases

  • Clivia Gardens Body Corporate v Tsobole Vusi JeanCSOS 6543/GP/23
  • Crescendo Body Corporate v Mabio Potego BenedictCSOS 5781/GP/23
  • Growth Invest 133 (PTY)LTD v AM Mnakathi and Lala Palm Body CorporateCSOS 4441/KZN/23

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97