Unpaid levies? Lights out: Court empowers Body Corporates

Sectional title owners behind on their levies and utility bills may find themselves in the dark—literally. In a significant Johannesburg High Court ruling, it was confirmed that a body corporate has the legal right to disconnect the electricity supply of owners in arrears, as long as the proper legal process is followed.

Whether a body corporate can disconnect the electricity of owners in arrears with their levies and utilities has long been a contentious issue, often sparking conflict between financial obligations and individual rights. In the case of Body Corporate The Straight v Katisi (2023/031774) [2025] ZAGPJHC 2 (3 January 2025) (“Katisi-case”), the Johannesburg High Court struck a balance between a body corporate’s duty to maintain financial stability and the rights of an owner in arrears.

The respondent, Katisi, had fallen behind on levy and utility payments—including electricity consumption—for over two years since becoming an owner. In response, the body corporate sought a monetary judgment for the outstanding amount and an order authorising it to appoint an electrician to disconnect Katisi’s electricity supply until the arrears, along with interest, had been paid in full.  

The court noted the conflict between two competing rights, namely, the body corporate’s rights to be reimbursed for the payments made on behalf of unit owners who are in arrears, and an owner’s right to be supplied with electricity.

The court held that a fiduciary relationship exists between the trustees and the body corporate, which requires the trustees to manage the body corporate’s affairs in a manner that benefits all its members. This duty includes recovery of monthly levies and other charges to ensure sufficient funds for administering the affairs of the sectional title scheme, as well as maintaining the common property within the scheme. 

The court further emphasised that the body corporate is a non-profit association and is not allowed to generate income from sources outside the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act, 8 of 2011. Its financial sustainability  and continued existence thus depend almost entirely on the levies and utility charges paid by its members. 

The body corporate had also been covering Katisi’s electricity charges for over two years, as it is required to pay electricity charges to Eskom monthly on behalf of all members. The court noted that if the body corporate were unable to recover these payments from individual owners, it risked depleting its funds, which could ultimately lead to the disconnection of electricity for the entire scheme. 

The court further held that an order authorising the disconnection of Katisi’s electricity was crucial in this regard, as the continued enjoyment of electricity without payment was detrimental to the financial stability of the body corporate and other paying owners. 

However, it is important to emphasise that a body corporate cannot arbitrarily take the law into its own hands by disconnecting certain utilities, as this may amount to spoliation. The appropriate court authorisation must be obtained.

The judgment therefore reinforces the principle that while unit owners have the right to basic services such as electricity, they also have a duty to contribute toward the financial sustainability of the sectional title scheme. By confirming that a body corporate may disconnect electricity, provided the correct legal procedures are followed, the court has established a preventive measure for the body corporate to safeguard the interests of paying owners. This ensures that all members contribute fairly towards the financial affairs of the body corporate while empowering the body corporate to act against non-paying owners.

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 have 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). 

May 6, 2025
Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

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

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

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