CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Trustees of Cherere Body Corporate v Mr VM Kunda

CitationCSOS006306/GP/23
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Community Schemes Management Act (No.8 of 2011)Community Schemes Ombud Service Act (No.9 of 2011)
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in

Facts of the Case

The applicant, Trustees of Cherere Body Corporate, a community scheme under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act (CSOS Act), sought an order for the payment or re-payment of a contribution from Mr VM Kunda, who is the registered owner of unit 5 at the Cherere Body Corporate. The respondent failed to pay levies that were due and outstanding as of February 23, 2024, amounting to R45,458.19.

Legal Issues

  • Whether Mr VM Kunda is indebted to the applicant for the unpaid levies
  • The appropriate order to compel payment or re-payment of a contribution

Judicial Outcome

The relief sought by the applicant was granted in terms of section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act. The respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding amount in twelve equal monthly instalments starting from April 1, 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent is indebted to the applicant in the amount as claimed, based on a balance of probabilities. The order for payment was granted under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.

Obiter Dicta

The adjudicator noted that relief sought for the sale in execution falls outside the ambit of the CSOS Act and is not within its jurisdiction.

Legal Significance

This case highlights the enforcement mechanisms available under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act for community schemes to recover unpaid levies from unit owners. It also underscores the importance of timely and consistent payment by unit owners to ensure the financial stability of the scheme.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97