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
Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court has recently delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that customary marriages and civil marriages hold equal legal status. Importantly, the Court clarified the implications and validity of antenuptial contracts within the context of customary marriages.

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

The recent judgment in Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner’s Association and Others 2026 (1) SA 449 (SCA) (17 October 2025) has brought welcome clarity to the long‑standing question of whether the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) limits the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal was incorporated into South African labour law in the 1980s and later codified in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). In terms of section 186(1)(e) of the LRA, an employee may resign, whether with or without notice, and claim unfair dismissal on the basis that their continued employment had become intolerable. Although the concept can be difficult to apply in practice, the Constitutional Court has clarified its meaning and reaffirmed its role within our law.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest