Is Compliance with PMRs 25(1) and (2) a Prerequisite for Levy Debt Enforcement?

A recurring challenge faced by bodies corporate is the enforcement of unpaid levies, particularly where procedural objections are raised in the Magistrates’ Courts. One such objection frequently encountered is alleged non-compliance with Prescribed Management Rules (“PMRs”) 25(1) and (2) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Regulations, 2016 (“the STSMA Regulations”).

High Court authority provides welcome clarity on this issue and has reaffirmed the dominance of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 (“the STSMA”) over its subordinate regulations

In the matter of Body Corporate of Central Park v Mosa, Kathree-Setiloane J cautioned against an interpretation that allows subordinate legislation to override primary statutory provisions, stating that such an approach would amount to “the tail wagging the dog”.

This observation is particularly relevant where courts insist on compliance with regulatory notice provisions before permitting enforcement of rights that arise directly under the STSMA.

Despite this, bodies corporate have historically experienced resistance in the Magistrates’ Courts, where applications for default judgment have been dismissed due to alleged non-compliance with PMRs 25(1) and (2). These dismissals have resulted in prolonged recovery processes, increased legal costs, and cash-flow strain within schemes.

PMR 25(1) requires a body corporate, within 14 days of approval of its annual budgets, to notify members in writing of their levy contributions and charges. The notice must specify payment dates, applicable interest, and the dispute resolution processes which apply to disputed contributions and charges.

PMR 25(2) provides for a final notice where a member has failed to pay levies when due. This notice must demand immediate payment, specify interest accrued and accruing, and warn that recovery action will follow if payment is not received within 14 days.

While these provisions undoubtedly promote good governance and transparency, the critical legal question is whether they are foundational to the cause of action for levy recovery.

Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the STSMA are unambiguous. They provide that:

1. Liability for normal levies accrues upon the passing of a trustee resolution and is recoverable from the owners at that time; and
2. Special levies become due upon the passing of the relevant trustee resolution.

Importantly, the STSMA does not prescribe the giving of a notice as a condition for levy liability to arise or for enforcement proceedings to be instituted.

This issue was squarely addressed in Body Corporate of Kleber v Obakeng and Another and Body Corporate of Central Park v Mosa, both appeals from the Randburg Magistrates’ Court.

In both matters, default judgments had been refused due to alleged non-compliance with PMRs 25(1) and (2). On appeal, the Johannesburg High Court held that:

1. Levy liability arises upon the passing of the trustee resolution, as contemplated in sections 3(2) and (3) of the STSMA;
2. The giving of notices in terms of PMR 25 does not form part of the cause of action;
3. Failure to issue such notices does not negate the body corporate’s right to claim arrear levies; and
4. PMR 25(2) constitutes an administrative mechanism promoting good practice rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite to enforcement.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that subordinate legislation cannot override or diminish rights expressly conferred by an Act of Parliament.

While the legal position is now settled, the practical realities remain challenging. Even where bodies corporate are legally entitled to enforce levy debt, recovery proceedings take time. Disputes, defended actions, appeals, and procedural delays continue to strain scheme finances.

Unpaid levies impact a body corporate’s ability to meet its municipal obligations, pay service providers, maintain common property, and build adequate reserve funds. In extreme cases, service disconnections and deferred maintenance place the entire scheme at risk.

This is precisely where the BC Funding Solutions Levy Funding Solution provides a strategic intervention.

Rather than allowing levy arrears and enforcement delays to compromise financial stability, bodies corporate can access funding to:

1. Stabilise cash flow while levy recovery processes run their course;
2. Settle municipal arrears and avoid disconnections;
3. Fund essential maintenance, repairs, or capital projects; and
4. Reduce reliance on special levies that burden compliant owners.

By funding the arrear levies of the body corporate, BC Funding Solutions enables trustees to govern proactively, rather than reactively. The result is a financially resilient scheme that can enforce levy obligations confidently, without jeopardising operational continuity.

The High Court has decisively confirmed that compliance with PMRs 25(1) and (2) is not a legal prerequisite for levy debt enforcement. Levy liability arises on the passing of a trustee resolution under the STSMA, and bodies corporate are entitled to pursue recovery accordingly.

However, legal clarity does not eliminate financial pressure.

Until arrears are recovered, schemes must still function, maintain services, and meet statutory obligations. The BC Funding Solutions Levy Funding Solution offers a practical, compliant, and effective mechanism to support bodies corporate during this critical period, ensuring financial stability while lawful enforcement runs its course.