BEHIND ON LEVIES? THE LEGAL REALITY EXPLAINED IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT HIGH COURT RULING

This article examines the mechanisms through which body corporates may recover outstanding levies, alongside the High Court’s caution against the incurrence of excessive legal costs in the recovery process, for which the defendant owner becomes unjustly liable.

In the recent High Court ruling of Centenario Body Corporate v Thandeka Mlotya, the Judge refused to grant judgement in favour of the body corporate. Of particular importance, the Judge, disparaged the way in which body corporates pursue the collection of levy arrears.

Mlotya owed just under R18 000 in arrear levies and concluded an Acknowledgement of Debt (“AOD”) with the body corporate.  Mlotya made various payments towards the arrears, but the body corporate sought for the defendant owner to be additionally liable for the legal fees which had accrued, and which pertinently, far outweighed the arrears owed by Mlotya.

The question before the Court was, whether the body corporate could raise unlawful charges against the homeowners, which in the ordinary course, they would not legally be entitled to charge, but for the AOD.

The attorneys for the body corporate, were in control of the debt collection process, thus abdicating the process from the body corporate. The purpose of the body corporate is statutorily to ensure the proper and fair management of the estate or complex, which is usurped by the attorneys who pursue the recovery of arrear levies and the fees incurred in the litigation phase.

The concern becomes whether the attorneys acting for the body corporate are motivated by the collection process, which again extends to litigation phase, thereby generating fees which are determined by the attorneys and which are directly recoverable from the defendant owner. This is reflective of a conflict of interest, and which often has a domino effect of causing the defendant owner to fall into further arrears which results in the body corporate having the defendant owner declared insolvent or having the property attached. Something which is seen all too often by our Courts.

The Courts have taken a firm stance against body corporate and trustees rubber stamping the escalation of legal fees and attorney driven processes for which the defendant owner becomes liable.

It is imperative that there is oversight from the trustees of the body corporate in the recovery process which does not simply permit the attorneys to accrue costs for which the defendant owner becomes liable. 

Body corporates are cautioned against endorsing attorneys in abdicating the collection process, escalating the legal fees recoverable by the defendant owner and must ensure strict oversight.

By Geri Dawes

(Senior Associate)

11 May 2026

This article should not be construed as legal advice. While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this article, neither the writer/s of this article nor the publisher shall bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information and/or recommendations contained herein. This article material is for informational and educational purposes only.

This content is the property of URA. Whilst we encourage the sharing of our content for informational purposes, if you wish to copy and/or reproduce our content on your own platform and/or website, kindly ensure that proper credit is given to URA.