Seaforth Terraces Body Corporate v Boitumelo Desire Molojoa

The applicant, Seaforth Terraces Body Corporate, is the body corporate of a sectional title scheme in Simonstown established under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011. The respondent, Boitumelo Desire Molojoa, is the registered owner of units B1 and E1 in the scheme and, by virtue of ownership, a member of the body corporate. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levies and related charges when due. As at 8 August 2023, the arrears on unit B1 were stated to be R31 121.37, and the arrears on unit E1 were R24 526.93, comprising unpaid levies, reserve fund contributions, CSOS levies, interest, and debt collection-related charges. The applicant stated that monthly statements, reminders, and letters of demand had been sent to the respondent and that the respondent had been warned that the matter would be referred to CSOS if payment was not made. The matter proceeded under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 after conciliation did not resolve the dispute and a certificate of non-resolution was issued. The respondent complained that she had not been properly furnished with the application and insufficient time had been given for written submissions, but ultimately filed no substantive response disputing liability or the amounts claimed.

• Whether the respondent, as owner of units in the sectional title scheme, was liable to pay the outstanding levies and related contributions claimed by the body corporate.
• Whether the applicant had established, on a balance of probabilities, the arrear amounts due in respect of units B1 and E1.
• Whether the respondent had been afforded a fair opportunity to make submissions in compliance with audi alteram partem.
• Whether the adjudicator could grant an order for payment of the full arrear amounts together with interest under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether legal fees and demand-related charges could be allowed without taxation or agreement as to their reasonableness.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay the Seaforth Terraces Body Corporate R31 121.37 in respect of Unit B1 plus 2% interest per month, and R24 526.93 in respect of Unit E1 plus 2% interest per month. The respondent was directed to pay these amounts within 90 days of the order dated 10 April 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A registered owner in a sectional title scheme is legally obliged under the STSMA to pay levies and related approved contributions when they fall due. Where a body corporate proves ownership, the existence of the levy obligation, and the arrear amounts on a balance of probabilities, and the owner does not dispute the debt with evidence, CSOS may grant an order under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of the full outstanding levies and interest. A respondent who is afforded adequate opportunity to make submissions but elects not to do so cannot rely on procedural unfairness to resist adjudication on the papers.

The adjudicator made broader observations about the purpose of levies in sustaining scheme management, maintenance, insurance, and municipal obligations, and noted that owners who default are effectively subsidised by compliant members. The adjudicator also commented that legal fees and fees for letters of demand are generally subject to taxation or agreement and may require a separate enquiry into reasonableness before enforcement. These remarks were not essential to the core finding on liability for the unpaid levies.

This adjudication reinforces the compulsory nature of levy obligations in sectional title schemes and confirms the use of CSOS as an effective statutory forum for body corporates to recover arrear levies under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act. It also illustrates that an owner who fails to place a genuine dispute before the adjudicator risks judgment on the documentary record, provided procedural fairness has been observed. The order is also significant in distinguishing recoverable levy debt from legal costs and collection charges, indicating that such legal charges may require taxation or agreement before they can be enforced in full.