In a recent legal case, The Body Corporate v JM Katisi (judgment delivered on 3 January 2025), the Body Corporate sought a monetary judgment against one of its members for unpaid levies and electricity charges amounting to R107,940.631. The Body Corporate also requested authorization to disconnect the electricity supply to the property until the outstanding amount was paid in full.
There was tension between competing interests in this matter: the right of the Body Corporate to be reimbursed for payments made on behalf of the unit owners and the right of the owner to be supplied electricity.
One of the rationales behind Sectional Titles Schemes, was to provide ownership rights to individuals with lower incomes. Accordingly, the authorisation to disconnect a unit owner’s electricity is crucial, as these households are responsible for the payment of these accounts. In the event that the Body Corporate is unable to finance non-paying owners, the entire scheme’s electricity may be disconnected.
In the absence of a safeguard, a defaulting unit owner enjoys the benefit of electricity without paying his dues at the expense of the other owners. This is detrimental to the financial stability of the Body Corporate and the other owners. The disconnection of the supply of electricity can operate or function as a preventative measure to safeguard other owners by ensuring that the financial responsibility is shared equally and proportionately to avoid financial hardships and the repercussions thereto.
In the present case, the Body Corporate had made out a case for the authorisation relief based on a tacit agreement between the Body Corporate who is represented by the trustees on the one side and the owners of the units on the other side. In terms of the tacit agreement the Body Corporate pays the electricity charges on behalf of the owners, they in turn have an obligation to reimburse the Body Corporate for such payment.
If an owner fails to reimburse the Body Corporate, it is entitled to take the necessary steps to mitigate its losses and prevent further usage until the electricity charges had been paid. The disconnection of the supply of electricity will put the Body Corporate in the position where it will be able to cap its losses, whilst it attempts to recover the arrears. In addition, this will avoid the risk of Eskom disconnecting the electricity supply to every other unit in the scheme.
The contentious issue was the disconnection of electricity, with the defaulting unit owner arguing that the disconnection would violate his constitutional rights. The Body Corporate, however, sought court authorization to ensure procedural fairness.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Body Corporate, allowing the disconnection until the arrears were settled.
The information provided in this article does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available in this article are for general informational purposes only. Readers of this article should contact us or any other attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this article should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this article without first seeking legal advice. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this article are hereby expressly disclaimed. The content on this posting is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.