Thornhill Body Corporate v Anesh Armaidas

The applicant, Thornhill Body Corporate, is the body corporate of a residential sectional title scheme situated in Xanadu ECO Park, Hartbeespoort, North West. The respondent, Anesh Armaidas, is the registered owner of Unit 4 in the scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. The body corporate alleged that the respondent failed to make regular levy payments over a period of time. It claimed arrear levy contributions in the amount of R30 409.81, as reflected in the application lodged with the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) on 18 October 2023. The respondent did not file a response despite being notified in terms of section 43 of the CSOS Act and being given a further opportunity to respond. Conciliation did not resolve the matter, and a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 21 November 2023. The dispute was then referred to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether CSOS had jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 to determine the dispute.
• Whether the body corporate had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent owed arrear levy contributions of R30 409.81.
• Whether a body corporate is entitled under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 and applicable management rules to recover unpaid levies from a unit owner.
• Whether any order as to costs should be made in the adjudication.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions to the applicant in the amount of R30 409.81 in full on or before 29 February 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme is entitled, through CSOS and under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act, to obtain an order compelling a unit owner to pay arrear levy contributions where it establishes the indebtedness on a balance of probabilities. Levy contributions validly raised under the STSMA and applicable rules are recoverable from owners, and the non-payment of levies cannot be justified by an owner's disagreement or failure to engage in the process.

The adjudicator's remarks that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can destabilise a scheme were general observations explaining the policy importance of levy enforcement. The discussion of Management Rule 21(3)(c) concerning the charging of interest on overdue amounts was also not essential to the order, because the adjudicator granted only the arrear levy amount claimed and made no separate interest order.

This decision reinforces the enforceability of levy obligations in sectional title schemes through the CSOS adjudication process. It confirms that body corporates may use section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to obtain payment orders for arrear contributions and underscores the broader principle in South African sectional title law that owners cannot simply withhold levies. The case is also significant as an illustration of paper-based CSOS adjudication where the respondent defaults by not responding.