In Mannikin Close Body Corporate v Mrabalala and Others [2025] ZAGPJHC 959, the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg delivered a judgment that should command the attention of every body corporate, managing agent, and practitioner involved in levy collection. The case confronted an increasingly common but controversial practice.
The inclusion of untaxed legal fees and so-called “monitoring charges” in levy statements and their pursuit through summary judgment. Justice du Plessis’s ruling represents a decisive caution against the unchecked recovery of such charges and a reaffirmation of fairness and procedural oversight in community scheme management.
The facts were typical of many levy recovery disputes. The Mannikin Close Body Corporate sued the registered owners of a sectional title unit for outstanding levies, legal fees, monitoring charges, and interest. After the defendants filed a plea, the body corporate brought an application for summary judgment, contending that the defendants had no bona fide defence and that the debt was clearly established. The third defendant opposed the application, arguing that the statement bundled levies, interest, and legal costs into a single balance, rendering it impossible to determine what was actually owed.
More importantly, he argued that the legal fees were untaxed and had never been agreed to as required by Prescribed Management Rule 25(4), and that the “monitoring fees” were unexplained and not authorised under any rule or contract. On that basis, the defendant submitted that the claim was not a liquidated amount within the meaning of Rule 32(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
The body corporate’s counterargument rested on a trustee resolution dated 1 December 2021 authorising the recovery of attorney-and-client costs, together with reliance on the earlier decision in SS Glen High v Kruger NO, which had allowed a body corporate to include untaxed legal costs as part of a liquidated claim in summary judgment proceedings. The Court in Mannikin Close declined to follow that reasoning. Justice du Plessis held that accepting untaxed attorney invoices as liquidated debts would risk saddling sectional title owners with unverified charges, exposing them to inflated or unchecked legal accounts with no oversight. Taxation, the Court emphasised, serves as an important safeguard to ensure reasonableness and proportionality, particularly where the owner has no direct visibility of the legal work undertaken. Without taxation or the member’s explicit agreement, such charges cannot be considered liquidated.
The Court further remarked that “monitoring fees” were particularly problematic. These charges, often levied under the guise of administrative or oversight costs, lacked a clear legal basis and were not defined in the governing documents. Their inclusion without proper justification rendered them unliquidated and therefore incapable of being recovered through summary judgment. Even the trustee resolution, which purported to authorise debiting members’ accounts with whatever was reflected on an attorney’s invoice, could not override the explicit wording of Rule 25(4), which requires costs to be “as taxed or agreed by the member.” The Judge cautioned that any interpretation to the contrary would strip members of the very safeguard the Rule intended to provide and allow trustees and attorneys to set charges unilaterally, an outcome fundamentally inconsistent with fairness and transparency in community scheme governance.
Having examined the statement of account, the Court concluded that while the levies themselves were ascertainable and capable of calculation, the legal and monitoring fees were not. It therefore granted summary judgment only in respect of the arrear levies and refused summary judgment for the remainder of the claim. The defendants were granted leave to defend the disputed portion, and the body corporate was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, the Court noting that the claim could and should have been pursued in the Magistrates’ Court rather than in the High Court, where the costs of litigation are substantially higher.
The judgment is significant for several reasons. It reaffirms that untaxed legal costs cannot automatically be treated as liquidated debts suitable for summary judgment, even if authorised by trustee resolution or rule. It clarifies that “monitoring fees” or similar charges, unless expressly defined and contractually justified, are not recoverable in the same manner as levies or interest. It also underscores the importance of clear, itemised statements separating levies from ancillary charges, a practice many bodies corporate and managing agents continue to neglect. Perhaps most importantly, it sends a message that the principles of accountability and fairness must underpin levy collection processes. Sectional title owners are not passive debtors; they are members entitled to transparency and lawful governance.
From a governance perspective, Mannikin Close illustrates the growing judicial scepticism toward the aggressive or opaque recovery of legal and administrative costs in community schemes. The Court’s insistence on taxation reflects an alignment with both the spirit of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and the broader principles of consumer protection.
For practitioners, it is a reminder to ensure that levy recovery practices are grounded in lawful authority and transparent documentation. For trustees and managing agents, it is a prompt to revisit their resolutions, collection policies, and rule interpretations to ensure compliance with Rule 25(4) and to avoid exposing their schemes to avoidable costs and reputational harm.
Ultimately, the case reinforces a simple but vital principle: levies sustain sectional title schemes, but fairness sustains communities. Trustees who act transparently, and attorneys who insist on proper taxation and documentation, not only protect the scheme’s financial integrity but uphold the trust and confidence on which community living depends.
