The applicant, the Trustees of Westwood Gardens 1 Body Corporate, brought an application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, D Malire, the registered owner of Unit 96 in the scheme. The body corporate sought relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levies and related amounts. It filed supporting documents including the CSOS application, the respondent's levy history statement, minutes and resolutions authorising levies, communications to the owner, and a debtors list with profile notes. According to the updated levy statement, the respondent owed R169 679.39 as at 13 November 2023. The charges on the account included levies, administration costs, costs incurred, and interest. The respondent filed no submissions and sought no relief.
The application was upheld. The adjudicator ordered that the respondent owed the applicant R169 679.39 and must pay that amount in 24 equal monthly instalments of R7 069.97. The first payment was to be made within 30 days of receipt of the order, and the remaining 23 instalments on the first day of each succeeding month. No further interest would accrue during the payment period, but if the respondent defaulted on any instalment, the full outstanding amount would become immediately payable with interest. The order did not affect the respondent's ongoing obligation to pay current monthly levies and ancillary charges. No order as to costs was made.
A body corporate is entitled to obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levies and related amounts where it proves, through relevant supporting documentation such as levy statements, trustee or meeting resolutions, and communications, that the contributions were validly raised and are due and owing by the owner of the unit. Levy liability is a statutory incident of sectional title ownership under the STSMA, and interest and reasonable collection-related costs may be included where authorised by the applicable management rules and law.
The adjudicator made broader observations that levies are the 'life blood' of a body corporate, that defaulters are effectively subsidised by compliant owners, and that a body corporate cannot perform its statutory functions without contributions from unit owners. These remarks explain the policy rationale for strict enforcement of levy obligations but were not independently necessary to the order.
The decision illustrates the CSOS adjudication process as an effective statutory mechanism for body corporates to recover arrear levies without immediately resorting to ordinary court proceedings. It reaffirms in the sectional titles context that levy liability attaches to ownership, that properly authorised and documented levies are recoverable, and that interest and reasonable collection costs may be claimed where permitted by the management rules and legislation. The case is also a practical example of the evidential burden on a body corporate in levy recovery disputes.