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
Fee or tax? The court decides

Fee or tax? The court decides

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

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