Must a sectional title scheme developer also pay 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 the extension within 90 days of completion for occupation 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.

In conclusion, 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 a developer, it would be advised to consult with a property specialist to assist you in determining your exact financial obligations towards the scheme.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy has been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s). 

November 21, 2023
South Africa: The approach to regulating AI compared with the EU

South Africa: The approach to regulating AI compared with the EU

South Africa is actively working towards effective AI regulation, recognizing the need for
specialized legislation due to AI’s unique challenges and potential for consumer
protection and economic growth. The country’s efforts include the Presidential
Commission Report on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the establishment of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research, and the drafting of an AI Blueprint during its AU
chairmanship, advocating for a unified African AI approach.

Merging the pieces when transactions become indivisible

Merging the pieces when transactions become indivisible

On 28 June 2024, the Competition Commission published Draft Guidelines under section 79(1) of the Competition Act to address its approach towards ‘indivisible transactions.’ These guidelines are aimed at providing clarity on how multiple transactions can be evaluated as a single merger filing. In this article, we explore the key elements of the Draft Guidelines and the rationale behind their publication, offering insight into their potential impact on merger control in South Africa.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest