Trustees of Kayatina Body Corporate v M Seabela

The applicant, the Trustees of Kayatina Body Corporate, a body corporate established under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 and falling within the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act), brought a section 38 CSOS application against M Seabela, the registered co-owner of Unit 8 in the Kayatina scheme in Sunnyside, Gauteng. The applicant alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levies and related charges and sought payment of R364,058.62 as at 1 November 2023, together with ancillary relief including attachment and execution against immovable property, attachment of rental income, and costs. The respondent did not respond to the section 43 notice and filed no submissions. The applicant relied on levy statements from two managing agents, Pro Admin and Mems Letting. On investigation, the adjudicator found that while the respondent had been in levy arrears for many years and was liable for contributions, the applicant had not adequately proved the lawfulness and calculation of all components of the amount claimed, especially historic interest, collection commission, and certain administrative or legal charges incurred during the Pro Admin period. The adjudicator therefore required reconciliations of the levy account before any final amount could be confirmed.

• Whether the respondent, as unit owner, was liable to the body corporate for arrear and current levies under the STSMA, PMR 25, and the scheme's resolutions.
• Whether the applicant had proved on a balance of probabilities the full amount claimed, including the opening balance carried forward from earlier periods.
• Whether interest debited on arrear levies had been validly authorised, particularly for the period administered by Pro Admin.
• Whether collection commission and various administrative, legal, SMS/email, and cash deposit charges were lawfully recoverable from the respondent.
• Whether the CSOS adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 39 of the CSOS Act to order attachment and execution against immovable property or other relief beyond the section 39 remedies.
• Whether the applicant had proved the factual basis for an order directing a tenant to pay rental to the body corporate under section 39(1)(f).
• Whether costs and post-order interest or other additional amounts could be granted on the papers before the adjudicator.

The adjudicator found for the applicant, but not as claimed. The applicant was ordered to reconcile the respondent's levy account for the periods 1 August 2015 to 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2020 to 30 November 2023 by deducting unproven or unauthorised charges and recalculating the lawful amount due. The order regarding arrear levies and ancillary charges was made as an interim order pending delivery of the reconciliation to the adjudicator. Relief for other charges, post-order interest, attachment and execution against immovable property, attachment of rental income, and costs was refused. There was no order as to costs.

A body corporate may obtain relief under the CSOS Act for unpaid levies only to the extent that it proves on a balance of probabilities the lawful basis and quantification of the amounts claimed. Historic balances, interest, collection commission, and ancillary charges must be supported by proper authority under the STSMA, prescribed management rules, scheme rules, or valid resolutions. Charges not shown to be authorised or properly calculated cannot be enforced. In addition, a CSOS adjudicator may grant only relief falling within section 39 of the CSOS Act and may not order remedies outside that statutory ambit.

The adjudicator remarked that owners who default on levies are effectively subsidised by compliant owners and that non-payment undermines the body corporate's ability to maintain the scheme and preserve property values. The adjudicator also referred to case law emphasising the body corporate's statutory duty to raise contributions and noted more generally the importance of proper proof where the onus lies on an applicant. These observations were explanatory and contextual rather than necessary to the limited interim order ultimately made.

The case is important in South African community schemes jurisprudence because it confirms both the enforceability of levy obligations and the evidential burden resting on a body corporate when claiming historical arrears and ancillary charges through CSOS. It illustrates that while bodies corporate are entitled to recover lawfully levied contributions, they must prove the contractual or statutory basis for interest, collection commission, legal and administrative charges, and cannot simply rely on unparticularised account balances. The decision also underscores the limited remedial jurisdiction of a CSOS adjudicator under section 39 of the CSOS Act.