Contact
Property

Must a developer of a sectional title scheme also pay levies?

“I’ve developed a small sectional title scheme with a few units in town. Most of the units have been sold and the body corporate has been established. The body corporate has now requested me to also contribute to the levies of the scheme. Am I as the developer required to contribute to the levies?”

On closer inspection of the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 (“Act”) it is clear that the developer forms part of the body corporate and the Act and its financial obligations are also applicable to the developer.

In respect of the payment of levies in the scheme, it is important to differentiate between units that are already registered in the name of the developer and where the developer is the holder of a right to extend the scheme. In the event that units are already registered in the name of the developer, the developer is regarded as the owner of those units in terms of the Act and will therefore be liable to contribute to the administrative as well as the reserve fund of the scheme for those specific units.

In a recent High Court case it was stated that in the event of a developer being the owner of a right to extend the scheme, the body corporate may recover from the developer an additional contribution, but only for the actual amounts spent on the actual part of the common property reserved in terms of the right to extend. Only when the units are completed on the common property where the right to extend was reserved, and the sectional plans to extend are registered in the Deeds Office, will levies become payable to the body corporate by the developer in respect of these units. Should the developer fail to register the sectional plan of extension within a reasonable time after completion of the units, the body corporate may request payment of levies towards the reserve fund. The latter is to ensure that developers do not evade their financial obligations.

So yes, a developer can be required to contribute to the levies of the body corporate of a scheme. If you are uncertain as to the extent of your obligations as developer, it would be prudent to consult with a property specialist to assist you to determine your exact financial obligations towards the scheme.

February 7, 2018
Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

by | Feb 25, 2026 | , , , , ,

Nearly 5 decades after its original enactment, South Africa’s copyright regime is undergoing one of the most significant reforms in its history. The Copyright Amendment Bill [B13F-2017] introduces modern protections to secure the financial and digital interests of authors and performers, thereby strengthening their economic rights in an increasingly digital world. While parts of the Bill remain under constitutional review, a landmark 2025 court ruling has already enforced critical protections for users with disabilities. This article breaks down the primary measures intended to safeguard South African creativity.

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The importance of due diligence in M&A

by | Feb 11, 2026 | , , ,

The excitement of a merger or acquisition often sits in the “big picture” strategy, but the success of the deal lives or dies in the details. Due diligence is not a box-ticking exercise. It is the point at which assumptions are tested, risks are priced, and uncomfortable questions are asked. This article explores why looking before you leap, by conducting a thorough due diligence, is the golden rule of mergers & acquisitions (“M&A”) transactions.

Customary marriages stand equal

Customary marriages stand equal

by | Feb 4, 2026 | , ,

In a landmark judgment delivered on 21 January 2026, the Constitutional Court pronounced welcomed clarity on the interplay between customary marriages, civil marriages, and antenuptial contracts (“ANC”). The Court, by majority decision in VVC v JRM and Others (CCT202/24) [2026] ZACC 2 (21 January 2026) , declined to confirm a High Court order that had declared section 10(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (“the Recognition Act”) unconstitutional. The majority decision powerfully reaffirmed the equal constitutional status of customary marriages and established that spouses cannot unilaterally alter their matrimonial property regime without judicial oversight.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest