Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Body Corporate Camarque v Singh and Another (D5012/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 23 (29 April 2025)
Summary judgment was refused in a body corporate levy dispute because the defendants raised a bona fide defence on quantum and the claim was inadequately supported.
Body Corporate The Straight v Katisi (2023/031774) [2025] ZAGPJHC 2 (3 January 2025)
The court found that the Body Corporate is entitled to judgment for arrear levies and electricity charges, as the respondent conceded indebtedness and failed to raise a valid defence. The scheme's rules and resolutions, passed by the trustees, bind all unit owners, including the respondent, and authorise recovery of arrears and disconnection of electricity for non-payment. The Body Corporate demonstrated a tacit agreement with the respondent upon his purchase of the unit, obliging him to comply with scheme rules. The applicant followed due process, including notice of consequences for non-pay…
Source excerpt
L.A and Another v Body Corporate of London Place and Others (11463/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 92; 2025 (1) SA 147 (WCC) (27 March 2024)
The court held that ordinary members of a body corporate are not members of its governing body for purposes of section 13(1)(e) of the Prescription Act. Only trustees constitute the governing body, as they are entrusted with the powers and functions of the body corporate under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act. Since neither applicant was ever a trustee, the statutory impediment delaying prescription does not apply. The body corporate's claim for historic arrear levies against the applicants has therefore prescribed, and the body corporate is precluded from relying on the prescribed…
Source excerpt
Body Corporate Ashwood Manor v Macgregor (027545/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1153 (13 October 2023)
The High Court refused a body corporate’s request to authorize electricity disconnection for arrears, holding no legal power was shown for that relief.
Body Corporate Ruby Court v Boyce (55013/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1136 (7 September 2023)
The High Court declared a sectional title unit specially executable for arrear levies, set a reserve price of R500,000, and ordered attorney-client costs.
Lion Ridge Body Corporate v Alexander; Lion Ridge Body Corporate v Morata; Lion Ridge Body Corporate v Mukona and Another (17074/2022; 18106/2022; 19220/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 713 (21 September 2022)
The High Court dismissed body corporate claims for arrear levies and utility disconnection orders because no rule or agreement authorising the relief was pleaded.
Van Den Bos v Ethel and Another (3176/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 668 (8 September 2022)
The High Court granted special executability over a respondent’s primary home for unpaid sectional title levies, authorizing a writ of execution and declining to set a reserve price.
Body Corporate of Oakmont v Awah (2490/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 362 (20 September 2019)
The High Court held that a sectional-title unit owned by a non-resident debtor was executable under Rule 46, and granted relief to limit water supply.
Singh v Sheriff Sandton North and Others (47164/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 378 (4 September 2019)
The application for setting aside the sale in execution was dismissed because the inclusion of legal fees and costs in the arrear levies was lawful and in accordance with both the Sectional Titles Act and binding precedent. The applicant's repeated litigation was found to be vexatious, justifying an order restricting further proceedings without leave of court. The applicant's conduct warranted referral to the National Prosecuting Authority for investigation of possible fraud and/or perjury. Punitive costs were awarded against the applicant due to his persistent abuse of process.
Source excerpt
Singh v Sheriff Sandton North and Others (47164/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 373 (4 September 2019)
The court held that the inclusion of legal fees and costs in the calculation of arrear levies payable by the purchaser at a sale in execution is correct and mandated by the Sectional Titles Act and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Barnard NO v Regspersoon van Aminie en 'n Ander. The applicant's argument that the arrear amount was inflated is unsustainable. The applicant's persistent and unreasonable litigation regarding the property justified declaring him a vexatious litigant and restricting further proceedings without leave of the court. The application for setting aside the sale…
Source excerpt
Explore more
