Trustees of Caranita Body Corporate v EN Kgare

The applicant, described in the heading as the Trustees of Caranita Body Corporate, brought a dispute-resolution application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against EN Kgare, the registered owner of section 4 at Gemini Place, Verwoerd Park, Johannesburg. The judgment text contains an inconsistency, as the introduction refers to the applicant as the Trustees of Cobbles Body Corporate; however, the formal title identifies the applicant as the Trustees of Caranita Body Corporate. The applicant alleged that the respondent had failed to pay monthly levies and recoverable consumable charges reflected on the levy statement, with arrears dating from July 2023. The applicant contended that the continuing arrears placed financial strain on the body corporate in meeting its obligations to creditors. The matter was first referred to conciliation, which failed, and a certificate of non-resolution was issued. The respondent filed no submissions despite being afforded an opportunity to do so. The applicant sought payment of the arrear levy balance and related ancillary charges. The adjudicator considered the papers and the levy statement and found that, as at 24 January 2024, the respondent owed R26 256.45 in levies and ancillary amounts, including monthly CSOS levies.

• Whether the respondent, as a unit owner in the sectional title scheme, was liable to pay the arrear levies and ancillary charges claimed by the body corporate.
• Whether the applicant had proved, on a balance of probabilities, the amount owing by the respondent in the absence of any opposing submissions.
• Whether the charges reflected on the levy statement were authorised under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 and the prescribed management rules.
• What payment order should be made under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.

The application for relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act was granted. The respondent was declared indebted to the applicant in the amount of R26 256.45 in respect of levies and ancillary charges as at 24 January 2024. The respondent was ordered to pay that amount in 12 equal monthly instalments of R2 188.04, commencing on 1 July 2024, with the remaining instalments payable on the first day of each succeeding month. The order did not affect the respondent's obligation to continue paying ordinary monthly levies and ancillary charges. No interest would accrue on the outstanding amount during the 12-month payment period, but if the respondent defaulted on any instalment, the full outstanding amount would become immediately due and payable. There was no order as to costs.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme is entitled to recover arrear levies and authorised ancillary charges from a unit owner under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act where it proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the charges are due in terms of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and the prescribed management rules. In the absence of any contrary version from the respondent, documentary proof such as the levy statement and supporting trustee resolution is sufficient to justify an order for payment.

The adjudicator observed that owners who default on levy payments are effectively subsidised by other members who pay conscientiously, and that the body corporate cannot perform its functions without funds from unit owners. These comments explain the practical importance of levy enforcement but were not themselves necessary to the formal finding of indebtedness. The adjudicator's decision to allow payment by instalments and to suspend interest for 12 months was also a discretionary remedial feature rather than a binding statement of general principle.

The decision illustrates the CSOS's role in enforcing body corporate levy obligations through paper-based adjudication where conciliation has failed. It confirms the statutory duty of sectional title owners to contribute to scheme expenses and demonstrates that, in the absence of any defence from an owner, a body corporate can obtain an enforceable payment order on documentary proof. The order is also significant for showing the adjudicator's flexible remedial approach: while granting the body corporate substantive relief, the adjudicator tempered enforcement by allowing instalment payments and suspending interest for the repayment period.