Trustees of Huguenot Body Corporate v B S Sekgala

The applicant, the Trustees of Huguenot Body Corporate, brought an application under s 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, B S Sekgala, the registered owner of unit 602 in the Huguenot sectional title scheme in Sunnyside, Pretoria. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levies and related ancillary charges despite reminders and internal collection steps. It placed before the adjudicator an updated customer ledger, representation resolution, conduct rules, interest and levy resolution, and legal reminders. According to the body corporate, the respondent's arrears amounted to R57 650.98 as at 25 October 2023. The respondent did not dispute ownership or the existence of arrears in substance, but stated that she was willing to pay R1 000 per month and that the property was in the process of being sold, after which she intended to settle the account. The applicant also sought attachment of the property for sale in execution, but this relief was challenged by the adjudicator as falling outside the scope of s 39 of the CSOS Act.

• Whether the respondent was indebted to the body corporate for arrear levies and ancillary amounts in the sum of R57 650.98.
• Whether the applicant had placed sufficient evidence before the adjudicator to prove that the contributions and related charges were due and payable.
• Whether ancillary charges such as interest, CSOS levies, administration costs and legal reminder-related charges were recoverable from the respondent.
• Whether CSOS could grant relief beyond payment of arrears, specifically attachment of immovable property for sale in execution under s 39 of the CSOS Act.
• Whether, if payment was ordered, it was just and equitable to permit payment by instalments.

The application succeeded in part. Relief under s 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant R57 650.98 in 24 equal monthly instalments of R2 402.12, with the first payment due within 30 days of receipt of the adjudication order and the remaining instalments payable monthly thereafter. No interest would accrue during the permitted instalment period, but if the respondent defaulted on any instalment, the full outstanding amount would immediately become payable with interest. The order did not affect the respondent's obligation to continue paying regular monthly levies and ancillary charges. The request for attachment of the property for sale in execution was refused as falling outside s 39 of the CSOS Act. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate that places sufficient documentary proof before a CSOS adjudicator showing that levies and permissible ancillary charges were validly raised and remain unpaid is entitled to an order under s 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of those arrears by the registered owner of the unit, because liability for levies is an incident of ownership under the STSMA. CSOS adjudicative relief under s 39 is limited to the remedies authorised by the statute; attachment and sale in execution of immovable property falls outside that ambit and cannot be granted in such proceedings.

The adjudicator remarked that contributions are the 'life blood' of a body corporate and that defaulting owners are effectively subsidised by compliant owners. The adjudicator also observed, for practical and fairness reasons, that although the respondent's conduct in failing to pay was not condoned, it was just to allow repayment by instalments provided this did not affect ongoing monthly levy obligations. These comments were ancillary to the core finding of indebtedness and the statutory limits on available relief.

The decision is significant in community schemes and sectional title practice because it reaffirms that levy obligations attach to ownership of a unit and that a body corporate may recover arrear levies and ancillary charges through the CSOS adjudication process upon sufficient documentary proof. It also illustrates the limits of CSOS remedial powers: while CSOS may order payment of amounts due under s 39(1)(e), it cannot grant execution-type relief such as attachment and sale in execution of immovable property under that provision. The case further shows that an adjudicator may craft a practical instalment order even while upholding the body corporate's claim.