Keep the lights on and avoid power struggles in your scheme
High Court affirms body corporate’s right to disconnect electricity for levy defaulters
Introduction | The consequences of unpaid levies
As winter approaches, staying warm and keeping the lights on becomes a priority for every homeowner. But did you know that unpaid levies and utility bills can literally leave you in the dark? The Johannesburg High Court has confirmed that a body corporate may lawfully disconnect electricity to units whose owners are in arrears with levies and utilities — provided the correct legal process is followed.
In Body Corporate The Straight v Katisi (2023/031774) [2025] ZAGPJHC 2 (3 January 2025) (“the Katisi case”), the court weighed two competing interests: the individual right to essential services, and the body corporate’s obligation to preserve the financial integrity of the scheme.
Background | Is disconnecting electricity against constitutional right?
In this landmark ruling, the respondent, Mr Katisi, had accumulated a total debt of R107,940.63 over a 25-month period, of which R16,610.68 related specifically to unpaid electricity consumption charges. Despite his ongoing non-payment, the body corporate continued to meet its obligations to Eskom, effectively subsidising his electricity usage.
Following a trustee resolution passed in March 2023 to recover outstanding debts and authorise the disconnection of defaulting units, the body corporate initiated legal proceedings in April 2023. It sought judgment for the arrears and court authorisation to disconnect the electricity supply until the full outstanding amount, including interest, was settled.
Mr Katisi admitted his indebtedness but opposed the disconnection, arguing that it would infringe his constitutional rights, including the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property and the right to access electricity. The court, however, found that the body corporate had a corresponding duty to protect the rights of compliant members and to maintain the financial sustainability of the scheme.
Importantly, the court accepted that the body corporate, as a non-profit entity, relies entirely on owner contributions to meet its expenses. Continued subsidisation of defaulting members could jeopardise the entire scheme, including the electricity supply to paying owners.
The court held that disconnection in these circumstances is legally permissible, provided it is authorised by a court order, and rejected the notion that any owner is entitled to indefinite access to services at the expense of the collective.
The court’s decision
The court ruled in favour of the body corporate, emphasising that:
Trustees are bound by a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the scheme and its members, including ensuring the collection of levies and utilities.
A sectional title scheme’s viability hinges on regular contributions. As a non-profit entity, a body corporate cannot sustain itself without member payments.
Ongoing subsidisation of defaulters endangers the scheme’s financial health and continuity of services to all units.
Accordingly, the court confirmed that electricity disconnection is justified, but only if sanctioned by the court.
Due process is essential
The judgment reinforced that bodies corporate cannot act unilaterally. Disconnecting services without a court order constitutes unlawful spoliation — the wrongful deprivation of possession. Any such action must be preceded by due legal process, including adequate notice and judicial oversight.
Practical implications
The ruling provides clear guidance for both bodies corporate and owners:
Owners must meet their levy and utility obligations; non-payment has consequences.
Trustees may pursue legal remedies to safeguard the scheme’s financial health.
Disconnection of services is legally permissible, but only via court authorisation. “Self-help” remains unlawful.
Conclusion | Rights come with responsibilities
The Katisi judgment serves as a reminder that constitutional rights are accompanied by responsibilities. While access to basic services is protected, it cannot be enjoyed at others’ expense. With judicial safeguards in place, bodies corporate are now better equipped to act decisively against non-payment, ensuring fairness for all owners and the continued functionality of the scheme.
Read the full judgment here: Body Corporate The Straight v Katisi (2023/031774) [2025] ZAGPJHC 2 (3 January 2025)
If you are interested in seeking our legal advice, please email info@tvdmconsutlants.com or contact 061 536 3138 today!
Meet the Author
Rizaar Smidt is a Community Schemes Consultant at TVDM Consultants.
Rizaar studied at the University of the Western Cape, where he obtained his LLB degree Cum Laude. He served his articles of clerkship at STBB, a leading law firm in South Africa, gaining extensive experience in Property Law, as well as General and Commercial Litigation. Following articles, Rizaar was duly admitted as an Attorney of the High Court of South Africa, whereafter he was retained at STBB and practised as an Associate Attorney in their Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department. During his tenure, Rizaar independently managed a demanding civil and commercial litigation portfolio, to read more about Rizaar, click here.
Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of TVDM Consultants. The content herein is for information purpose 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 the application and accuracy has been confirmed by a legal advisor. TVDM Consultants and the author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content.
