ADJUDICATION ORDER IN TERMS OF SECTION 54 OF THE COMMUNITY SCHEMES

OMBUD SERVICES ACT NO.9 OF 2011

Ref:CSOS4669/GP/23

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

TRUSTEES OF CHESSINGTON
BODY CORPORATE APPLICANT

and

SIBONGILE SUCCESS PRUDENCE RESPONDENT

________________________________________________________________________

ADJUDICATION ORDER

________________________________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

Relief applied for in terms of the CSOS Act:

Section 39(1)(e) (1) In respect of financial issues — (e) an order for the payment or re-
payment of a contribution or any other amount.

Date referred to Adjudication:

13 SEPTEMBER 2023
1
 Ref:CSOS4669/GP/23

Date Adjudication conducted:

29 SEPTEMBER 2023

Name of the Adjudicator:

ANTHONY TSHABALALA

Order:
The relief sought by the Applicant against the Respondent is upheld insofar as it relates to
prayer (a), with the conditions set out in this order.

The Applicant seeks an order in the following terms;

(a) That in terms of CSOS Act 2011 section 39(1) (e) an order to request for payments of the
current and outstanding levies.

The Respondent is indebted to the Applicant for an amount of R17 661.96;

The Respondent is ordered to pay R2 943.66 for a period of six (6) months of receiving this
order;

The Respondent shall simultaneously pay the current levies parallel to the payment of the
outstanding levies in terms of this order. First date of payment is 01 November 2023;

Should the Respondent fail to make payments on due date of the levy account, then the full
amount shall become immediately due, owing and payable; and

No order is made as to cost.

INTRODUCTION

2
 Ref:CSOS4669/GP/23

1. The Applicant is Trustees of Chessington Body Corporate, a community scheme as

defined in the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (the CSOS Act), and to
which it would be convenient to refer to as the “Body Corporate.”

2. The Respondent, Sibongile Success Prudence, is the registered owner of Unit 31

Chessington Place, 15 Bushbuck Street, Dawn Park, Boksburg, GAUTENG PROVINCE.

3. This is an application for dispute resolution in terms of section 38 of the Community Schemes
Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (“the CSOS Act”’). The application was made in the prescribed
form and lodged with the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) by way of email.

4. The application seeking relief in terms of section 39 of the CSOS Act is in respect of Section
39(1) in respect of financial issues.

5. This matter is adjudicated in terms of the CSOS Act and Practice Directive on Dispute
Resolution, 2019 as amended and more specifically the amended Practice Directive dated
23 June 2020 which provides under paragraph 8.2: - “Adjudications will be conducted on the papers
filed by the parties and any further written submissions, documents and information as requested by the
appointed Adjudicator”. The parties were requested to make written submissions. The
adjudication was conducted on the 29 September 2023 and an order is now determined.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

6. No preliminary issues were raised.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

7. Section 1 of the CSOS Act defines-

 "community scheme” as “any scheme or arrangement in terms of which there is shared use of and
responsibility for parts of land and buildings, including but not limited to a sectional titles development scheme,
a share block company, a home or property owner's association, however constituted, established to
administer a property development, a housing scheme for retired persons, and a housing cooperative and
"scheme" has the same meaning.”

3
 Ref:CSOS4669/GP/23

 "dispute" as “a dispute in regard to the administration of a community scheme between persons who have
a material interest in that scheme, of which one of the parties is the association, occupier or owner, acting
individually or jointly”.

8. Section 38 of the CSOS Act provides-

“Any person may make an application if such person is a party to or affected materially by a dispute”.

9. Section 45(1) provides-

“The Ombud has a discretion to grant or deny permission to amend the application or to grant permission
subject to specified conditions at any time before the Ombud refers the application to an adjudicator.”

10. Section 47 provides-

“On acceptance of an application and after receipt of any submissions from affected persons or responses
from the applicant, if the Ombud considers that there is a reasonable prospect of a negotiated settlement of
the disputes set out in the application, the Ombud must refer the matter to conciliation.”

11. Section 48 (1) provides-

“If the conciliation contemplated in section 47 fails, the Ombud must refer the application together with any
submissions and responses thereto to an adjudicator.”

12. In terms of Section 50-

“The adjudicator must investigate an application to decide whether it would be appropriate to make an order.

13. Section 51 provides for the investigative powers of the Adjudicator:

“(1) When considering the application, the adjudicator may-
(a) require the applicant, managing agent or relevant person-
(i) to give to the adjudicator further information or documentation;
(ii) to give information in the form of an affidavit or statement; or
(iii) subject to reasonable notice being given of the time and place, to come to the office of the adjudicator for
an interview;
(b) invite persons, whom the adjudicator considers able to assist in the resolution of issues raised in the
application, to make written submissions to the adjudicator within a specified time; and
(c) enter and inspect-
(i) an association asset, record or other document;
(ii) any private area; and
(iii) any common area, including a common area subject to an exclusive use arrangement.”

4
 Ref:CSOS4669/GP/23

14. The dispute was directly referred to adjudication in terms of clause 21.5.7 of the CSOS
Practice Directive on Dispute Resolution, thus there was no conciliation meeting conducted.
The Ombud referred the application together with any submissions and responses thereto
to an adjudicator on 13 September 2023.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE

Applicant’s Submissions

15. The Applicant made written submission that the Respondent had not made any payments
towards outstanding levies.

16. Further, an email was sent on 06/07/2023 after trying to phone the Respondent, advising
that if no payment was received the account would be handed over to CSOS.

16. According to the Applicant, as at 24 July 2023, the outstanding balance was at R17 661.96.

17. The Applicant submitted a statement of account as proof of the Respondent’s indebtedness
to the Applicant.

18. In an effort to resolve the matter, letters and final demand letters that served as arrear levy
reminder were issued to the Respondent.

19. In addition, it appears that CSOS Notice and arrangement were requested.

20. Accordingly, the Applicant sought an order that the full arrear amount of R17 661.96 in arrear
levy was due and payable by the Respondent.

Relief sought by the Applicant

5
 Ref:CSOS4669/GP/23

(a) That in terms of CSOS Act 2011 section 39(1) (e) an order to request for payments of the
current and outstanding levies.

Respondent’s Submissions

21. The Respondent failed to make submissions to the Adjudicator on or before the
29 September 2023.

22. The Respondent did not seek any extension in relation to making submission nor did (s)he
bring any condonation application.

23. In view of the above, the matter is unopposed.

Relief sought by the Respondent

24. None submitted.

EVALUATION & FINDING

25. I have perused and taken into consideration all written submissions made by the Applicant
in arriving at the below decision.

26. In evaluating the evidence and information submitted, the probabilities of the case together
with the reliability and credibility of the witnesses must be considered.

27. The general rule is that only evidence, which is relevant, should be considered. Relevance
is determined with reference to the issues in dispute. The degree or extent of proof required
is a balance of probabilities. This means that once all the evidence has been tendered, it
must be weighed up and determined whether the Applicant’s version is probable. It involves
findings of facts based on an assessment of credibility and probabilities.

6
 Ref:CSOS4669/GP/23

28. The merits of the matter are not opposed. The evidence of the Applicant is uncontested. I
am, therefore, inclined to accept it.

29. Body Corporate of Marine Sands v Extra Dimensions 121 (Pty) Ltd 2020 (2) SA 61 (SCA)
at para 20 sates “The STA is thus designed to ensure that, before purchasing a sectional title unit, the
prospective purchaser will be aware of the participation quota attaching to that unit and the levy liability. The
liability for levies is an incident of ownership of a sectional title unit and is a burden that attaches to such
ownership.”

30. Section 3 of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act states that “A body corporate must
perform the functions entrusted to it by or under this Act or the rules, and such functions include –
(f) to raise the amounts so determined by levying contributions on the owners in proportion to the quotas of
their respective sections.”

31. The above-cited provision specifically states that the body corporate has an obligation to
collect levy contributions from owners of the sectional title units.

32. The Applicant seeks an order for payment of an amount of R17 661.96.

33. Section 3(2) of the STSMA read with the management rules 21(3) provides:
“(3) The body corporate may, on the authority of a written trustee resolution-...
charge interest on any overdue amount payable by a member to the body corporate, provided that the interest
rate must not exceed the maximum rate of interest payable per annum under the National Credit Act, 2005
(Act 34 of 2005), compounded monthly in arrear;”

34. I, therefore, find that the Respondent is indebted to the Applicant for the arrear levy amount
and interest charged.

35. However, it is in the interest of justice and fairness to grant the Respondent additional time
to settle arrear levies.

36. Accordingly, the Respondent is indebted to the Applicant.

7
 Ref:CSOS4669/GP/23

COSTS

37. There is no order as to costs.

ADJUDICATION ORDER

38. In the circumstance, it is ordered that:

(a) The Respondent is indebted to the Applicant for an amount of R17 661.96;

(b) The Respondent is ordered to pay R2 943.66 for a period of six (6) months of receiving this
order;

(c) The Respondent shall simultaneously pay the current levies parallel to the payment of the
outstanding levies in terms of this order. First date of payment is 01 November 2023;

(d) Should the Respondent fail to make payments on due date of the levy account, then the full
amount shall become immediately due, owing and payable; and

(e) No cost order.

RIGHT OF APPEAL

39. Section 57 of the CSOS Act, provides for the right of appeal-

(1) An applicant, the association or any affected person who is dissatisfied by an adjudicator's order, may appeal
to the High Court, but only on a question of law.

(2) An appeal against an order must be lodged within 30 days after the date of delivery of the order of the
adjudicator.

(3) A person, who appeals against an order, may also apply to the High Court to stay the operation of the order

8
 Ref:CSOS4669/GP/23

appealed against to secure the effectiveness of the appeal.

SIGNED at CENTURION on this 11 October 2023

A N Tshabalala
_____________________________________
ANTHONY TSHABALALA
ADJUDICATOR