Tag Archives: Owner

Pay your levies, or else…

Posted on by

CM_06_02Dear Mr Lawyer

I am the owner of a sectional title, and I have paid my levies every month as required, until the water started seeping through the ceiling of my enclosed balcony into my section when it rains. The leak was clearly emanating from a defect in the common property. I asked the body corporate on numerous occasions to repair the defect, yet after four months of writing letters and sending emails the body corporate still has not done anything to honour this simple request. As a frustrated owner I resorted to desperate measures and employed a contractor to repair the property defect. I settled the bill myself.

May I withhold my levies for a period to set off the money that is owed to me by the body corporate?

Dear Mr Owner

Although this action may sound reasonable, the right to stop paying or to set off a debt against levies is not legally justified and owners are not, under any circumstances, entitled to simply withhold levies.

There is no provision in the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 or the rules that gives an owner the right to withhold levy payments. Even if an owner incurs expense in performing an emergency repair to the common property, and believes that the body corporate owes him money, the owner may only set off the debt against the levies once it becomes liquid.

An amount can only be liquid once it has been agreed upon. An owner cannot set off the amount he believes he is entitled to deduct. The trustees, judge or arbitrator must have confirmed the amount.

If Mr Owner does withhold his levies without the amount being liquid, he is subject to the following sanctions in terms of the prescribed rules:

  • Firstly, the trustees are entitled to charge interest on arrear amounts at a rate determined by them, and so the defaulting owner may receive a larger account, due to the interest on his arrears, than if he had paid his levies.
  • What is more, The Sectional Titles Act imposes a positive obligation on trustees to recover levies from defaulting owners. Not only does the Act empower them to charge interest, the scheme attorneys will most likely issue summons against the defaulter for all costs that the Body Corporate may incur in recovering any arrears.
  • Secondly, the prescribed management rules provide that, except in the case of special and unanimous resolutions, an owner is not entitled to vote if any contributions payable by him in respect of his section have not been duly paid. Therefore, an owner who withholds his levies is unable to vote for ordinary resolutions in respect of the section that he is withholding levies on.

Mr Lawyer, how does an owner deal with a situation where he believes the body corporate is liable for payment?

A dispute must be declared with the Body Corporate by written notice of the dispute or query to the trustees. The trustees or Body Corporate then have 14 days from receipt to resolve the dispute. During this period, the parties should meet to try and resolve the dispute. If there is no resolution after the 14-day period, either party may demand that the dispute be referred to arbitration. The arbitrator must make his/her recommendations in settlement of the dispute within 7 days from the date of commencement of the dispute. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding and may be made an order of the High Court.

It is clear that prescribed processes are in place according to which disputes and related issues can be settled. Not only will this ensure that you act within the legal guidelines, but it will also eliminate unnecessary frustration.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Private defence of property

Posted on by

A3BThe common law provides that an owner may protect his property from harm or damage even though there might not be any physical risk of harm to the owner himself.

A person may use force in order to protect property and his or her rights therein. Private defence of property can only be resorted to if there is serious danger to the property or the owner’s rights therein. The danger must involve risk of loss, damage or destruction of the asset. The question is whether there were reasonable grounds for the defender to think that because of the offender’s unlawful conduct the danger existed.

There must be evidence that the property, movable or immovable, was in danger of unlawful damage and destruction at the moment action was taken. Unlike self-defence the danger need not necessarily have commenced or be imminent. Thus, private defence of property by means of protective devices is permitted in response to merely anticipated danger.

In order for a situation of private defence to arise, there must be evidence that:

  • l action was necessary to avert danger;
  • l the defence was a reasonable response;
  • l the defence was directed against the attacker;
  • l the attack was unlawful.

The measures taken to protect the defender’s proprietary interests must have been the only means whereby he could avoid danger. The rule regarding retreating has no application in the defence of property. One is not expected to abandon one’s property. Likewise, the inhabitants of dwellings are not expected to flee from homes, rather than resist the intrusion of a burglar.

The test is whether the means of defending the property were reasonable by having regard to all the circumstances, such as the nature and extent of the danger, the value of the property, and the time and place of the occurrence. The value of the property seems an important factor in determining the reasonableness of the defence.

In Ex parte Minister of Justice: In re S v Van Wyk the Court decided that killing in defence of property can be justified in circumstances where no other less dangerous or effective method is available to protect property.

In Ex Parte Minister of Safety and Security: In re S v Walters  2002 (CC), Judge Kriegler stated that while it was unnecessary to say whether our law allows for killing in defence of property, what is material is that the law applies a proportionality test, weighing the interest protected against the interest of the wrongdoer. These interests must now be weighed in the light of the Constitution. Judge Kriegler said that surely in Constitutional terms, the value of a life must be prized above the value of property.

The decision in Van Wyk is ripe for reconsideration by the Constitutional Court. Arguably the best route they could take is to draw a distinction between an excuse and a ground of justification. They could say that killing in defence of property is unlawful or wrongful, but in exceptional circumstances could be excusable if a reasonable person would have done the same thing.

It could therefore be argued that a deadly attack in defence of property would only be regarded as justifiable in extreme circumstances.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)