Contact
Building | Levies | Property | Sectional Title Scheme

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
Fee or tax? The court decides

Fee or tax? The court decides

by | Jul 2, 2026 | , ,

With effect from 1 July 2025, the City of Cape Town introduced three new charges on residential rate bills. These charges were challenged by the South African Property Owners’ Association (SAPOA) and AfriForum, who argued that they were unlawful and improperly calculated. The dispute culminated in court applications seeking declaratory orders that the charges were invalid because they were inconsistent with the Constitution, national legislation, and the City’s own By-Laws.

Pay first… maybe not

Pay first… maybe not

by | Jul 2, 2026 | , , ,

For decades, the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has relied on the “pay now, argue later” rule as a cornerstone of tax administration. This principle permits SARS to collect disputed taxes before the underlying dispute has been resolved, often placing significant financial strain on taxpayers. While the rule serves an important fiscal purpose, it also raises critical questions regarding fairness, proportionality, and the limits of administrative discretion.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest