The Trustees of The Pearls Body Corporate v Mack Mashao Mothomela

The applicant, The Trustees of The Pearls Body Corporate, is the body corporate of a community scheme situated in Regents Park, Johannesburg. The respondent, Mack Mashao Mothomela, is the owner of Unit 5 in the scheme. The body corporate, assisted by its managing agent Mawer and Delport, brought an application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 seeking relief under section 39(1)(e) for payment of arrear levies. The applicant alleged that the respondent had fallen into arrears, that monthly levy statements and reminder notices had been sent, and that the levies were necessary to maintain the scheme’s financial viability and enable payment for management, maintenance and services. The respondent filed no submissions or defence. The matter was therefore determined on the papers before the adjudicator.

• Whether the applicant body corporate was entitled under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to an order compelling the respondent to pay arrear levies.
• Whether the evidence placed before the adjudicator established, on a balance of probabilities, that the arrear levies were due and payable by the respondent.
• What legal obligations rest on a unit owner in a sectional title scheme regarding payment of levies.

The application was upheld. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant R27 221.52, together with interest at 18% per annum, within 30 days of the order. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate is entitled, under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act read with the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and the scheme rules, to obtain an order compelling a unit owner to pay arrear levies where the evidence shows that the owner is in default and the levies are due and payable. Liability for levies attaches to ownership of the sectional title unit, and in the absence of any rebuttal, uncontested proof of arrears justifies an order for payment with interest.

The adjudicator observed that non-payment of levies can jeopardise the financial viability of a scheme and impair its ability to pay municipalities and service providers, underscoring the importance of timely levy payments by all owners. These comments explain the practical importance of levy enforcement but were not strictly necessary beyond establishing the applicant’s entitlement to payment.

The decision reinforces the principle in South African sectional title and community schemes law that payment of levies is an incident of ownership and that a body corporate may use the CSOS dispute-resolution mechanism to recover arrear levies efficiently. It also illustrates that where an owner does not oppose a levy claim, an adjudicator may grant relief on the uncontested documentary evidence if the claim is proved on a balance of probabilities.