Trustees of Benoni City Body Corporate v AR & J Naidoo

The applicant, the Trustees of Benoni City Body Corporate, brought a dispute-resolution application under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondents, AR and J Naidoo, the registered co-owners of a unit in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondents were indebted in the amount of R9505.33 for arrear levies accrued from 1 December 2022 to 7 July 2023 and sought payment of the full amount. The applicant relied on its conduct rules and credit-control practices, including charges and interest added to the levy account. The respondents did not deny liability for ordinary levies, but disputed various charges added to their levy statement, including duplicate correspondence charges and other debits amounting to R4910.72. They stated that they had already paid R4587.08, that medical and personal circumstances had affected payment, and that they were willing to pay the actual arrear levies excluding the disputed charges. The adjudicator considered the papers after a certificate of non-resolution had been issued following failed conciliation.

• Whether the respondents were indebted to the applicant for unpaid levies, and if so in what amount.
• Whether the body corporate was entitled to debit the respondents' levy account with additional charges not constituting contributions or charges authorised by the Act or rules.
• Whether interest charged on overdue levies was valid in the absence of a written trustees' resolution as required by Prescribed Management Rule 21(3)(c).
• Whether the disputed correspondence and collection-related charges could lawfully be recovered from the respondents.
• Whether it was just and equitable to permit payment of the arrear levies by instalments and to suspend interest during that period.

The application was partially upheld. The respondents were declared jointly and severally liable to the applicant for R5460.72 in arrear levies. They were ordered to pay R2000.00 monthly from the end of August 2023 until the arrears were settled in full. No interest would accrue during that payment period, but if any instalment was missed, the full outstanding balance would become immediately due and payable with applicable interest from that date. The applicant was ordered to remove charges amounting to R4910.72 from the respondents' levy statement within 14 days of receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate is entitled to recover lawfully raised arrear levies from unit owners, but it may not debit an owner's account with additional amounts that are not contributions or charges authorised by the Act or prescribed rules unless the owner consents or there is judicial/adjudicative authority, as required by Prescribed Management Rule 25(5). Further, interest on arrear levies may be charged only where there is a written trustees' resolution complying with Prescribed Management Rule 21(3)(c); absent such a resolution, interest and unauthorised charges must be removed from the owner's account.

The adjudicator made broader observations that even decisions of community schemes that are not public in nature are reviewable under principles of legality, reasonableness and lawfulness, and referred to Minister of Water and Sanitation v The Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Others on audi alteram partem and natural justice. The adjudicator also commented that, while it is common in levy matters to order prompt payment to avoid prejudice to the body corporate, fairness and the interests of justice may justify allowing additional time for payment in appropriate circumstances.

The decision is significant for community schemes and sectional title governance because it confirms both sides of levy enforcement: owners remain liable for properly raised levies, but body corporates may recover only those amounts lawfully authorised by the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act, the prescribed management rules, consent, or a court/adjudicative order. The ruling underscores that collection charges and interest cannot simply be debited to an owner's account without proper legal authority and documentary proof, and that trustees must formally resolve to impose interest under PMR 21(3)(c). It also illustrates the CSOS adjudicator's willingness to grant practical instalment relief while still enforcing levy obligations.