1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2025-112633
In the matter between:
EYE Of AFRICA HOMEOWNERS Applicant
ASSOCIATION NPC
and
UBC HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD 1
st Respondent
MIDVAAL LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 2nd Respondent
JUDGMENT
MODIBA, J
[1] This is an application for monetary judgment and an order declaring immovable
property owned by UBC Holdings (Pty) Ltd (UBC) to be specially executable.
UBC opposes the application. UBC’s sole director is representing it in these
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
25 February 2026 ________________
DATE SIGNATURE
2
proceedings. UBC is a registered legal entity, and it may only be represented in
these proceedings by a legal practitioner. 1 However, surprisingly, Eye of Africa
Homeowner’s Association NPC ( The EOA) took no issue with this. T he issues
have been fully ventilated on the papers, and the matter is ripe for hearing. 2
Taking these factors into account, exercising a discretion to grant UBC leave to
be represented by its director is proper, as that would lead to a speedy disposal
of the matter.
[2] The EOA’s claim for monetary judgment is for arear levies and building penalties
(the monetary judgment) . In July 2024. it obtained a judgment out of the
magistrates’ court for unpaid contributions and charges in the amount of
R65 798.61 (the Magistrate’s order). It seeks an order declaring the immovable
property owned by UBC to be specially executable to enforce both the monetary
judgment and the magistrate’s order. UBC opposes the application on several
grounds. First, it contends that this court lacks jurisdiction over the matter as it
referred it to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) on 26 August
2025. It seeks a stay of these proceedings pending the outcome of the CSOS
matter.
[3] Second, it contends that its current director never signed t he EOA’s
memorandum of incorporation (MOI) in terms of which it (the EOA) renders levies
and other charges to it. It also contends that the penalties t he EOA rendered to it
are excessive and unreasonable and seeks relief in terms of the Conventional
1 Yates Investments (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1956 (1) SA 364 (A) at
170G - H.)
2 Manong & Associates (Pty) Ltd V Minister of Public Works and Another 2010 (2) SA 167 (SCA)
paragraphs 13-16.
3
Penalties Act 15 of 1962 and the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.
[4] The background facts are largely common cause. UBC acquired the immovable
property, and it was registered in its name on 24 February 2017. The immovable
property is a partially built structure. UBC does not own any other property.
[5] THE EOA contends that UBC is bound to its MOI by virtue of its membership to it.
Save for the issue set out in paragraph 3 above, UBC takes no issue with the
provisions of the MOI. The EOA relies on provisions in the MOI that creates rights
and obligations between the parties which I set out below.
[6] From time to time , The EOA directors may impose special levies upon members
to make contributions in respect of all expenses necessarily incurred. Any amount
due by a member by way of Levy or otherwise and interest shall be a debt due by
such member to the EOA. The EOA directors and/or managing agent may
impose a system of fines or other penalties, including litigation as they deem fit, to
enforce any Estate Rules, Architectural Guidelines, landscaping, and gardening.
Any fine so imposed shall be deemed to be a debt by the member of the EOA
and shall be recoverable by ordinary civil process.
[7] Each member shall within a period of twenty-four months after the date of the first
transfer of the Erf from the developer, commence building the dwelling on the Erf
and shall complete such dwelling within a period of thirty -six months. These
periods apply irrespective of whether the Erf has subsequently been transferred.
Should a member fail to do so, The EOA may choose to repurchase the Erf or sell
4
the Erf to any third party. The defaulting member is required to pay t he EOA an
amount equal to double the normal levy per month after three years from the date
of the first transfer of the Erf to the date of compliance. The amount so payable
will increase to three times the normal levy after one year of non-compliance.
[8] The EOA contends that UBC failed and/or refused and/ or neglected to pay the
arrear levies and other charges due and owing to it. As a result, it sought and
obtained the magistrate’s order. On 16 April 2025, the execution of the judgment
was unsuccessful as the sheriff rendered a nulla bona return. Since then, and as
at June 2025, UBC’s indebtedness to it has increased to R261 198.77. It is for
that reason that it seeks monetary judgment in the amount of that amount.
[9] UBC contends that substantial portions of the amount claimed are disputed and
are subject to a bona fide referral to the Community Schemes Ombud Services
dated 26 August 2025, the MOI may not be enforced without scrutiny under
Conventional Penalties Act and potentially the Consumer Penalties Act and the
Estate Rules and M IO were not validly communicated and brought to the
attention of its current director.
[10] There is no merit to th ese contentions. As contended on behalf of the EOA, in
terms of s 42 of the of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011
(CSOS Act) the CSOC ombud must reject an application by written notice to the
applicant if the relief sought does not fall within its jurisdiction and the ombud is
satisfied that the dispute should be dealt with in a court of law or other tribunal of
competent jurisdiction. In terms of paragraph 12.3. of the CSOC Practice
5
Directive on Dispute Resolution 2019, in addition to the grounds set in s 42 of the
CSOS Act, a dispute referred to the CSOS can be rejected if it is part of or closely
related to the existing proceedings in a court.
[11] The EOA instituted the present application prior to the referral of the dispute to
the CSOS. The EOA enrolled the application on the unopposed motion court roll
of 27 August 2025. When UBC submitted the dispute to CSOS on 26 August
2025, litigation in respect of the same dispute was subject to the m agistrate’s
order as well as the present application. Therefore, dispute referred to the CSOS
falls to be rejected for want of jurisdiction in terms of 42 of the CSOS Act read
with paragraph 12.3. of the CSOC Practice Directive on Dispute Resolution 2019.
[12] UBC alleges that the MOI provisions authorizing penalties may not be
enforced without scrutiny under the Conventional Penalties Act, and potentially
the Consumer Protection Act. However, it has not set out any factual averments
in support of its defence under the Conventional Penalties Act or relief under
Consumer Protection Act. As contended on behalf of EOA, i t is bound by the
contractual nature of the EOA rules and MOI. As the party seeking to avoid the
enforcement of the MOI, it bears the onus to establish that enforcing the EOA
would be unfair and unreasonable in the given circumstances. The respondent
has not established the basis upon which the terms are unfair, unconscionable or
unreasonable.
[13] UBC contends that T he EOA has been charging building levies to it since
2021. As a new owner, UBC further contended, it is entitled to a 24- month
moratorium. It is common cause that UBC is a registered owner of the property
6
since February 2017. The fact that its director only assumed that office later does
not absolve it from its obligations in terms of the MOI. It is not subject to a new
moratorium as there was no change of in the ownership of UBC. The penalties
were levied under the MOI to which UBC was bound since it acquired ownership
of the property in 2017.
[14] UBC alleged that the nulla bona return is defective as the sheriff did not make
reasonable attempts to attach bank account or other movables. The sheriff
served the warrant of execution at UBC’s registered address where it found a Mr
Makamu Ubisi (Mr Ubisi). Ironically, Mr Ubisi is the UBC’s erstwhile director. He
ceased to be UBC’s director in July 2024. He advised the sheriff that all the
assets at the premises belonged to Mihandzu Consulting and he does not know
UBC. There is no obligation on the sheriff under the circumstances in which he
rendered a nulla bona return to investigate whether UBC has bank accounts.
[15] For all the above reasons, UBC’s defences are rejected and the application
should succeed. I therefore issue the following order:
Order
[1] The First Respondent’s immovable property known as Erf 2[…] , Eye of Africa
Ext. 1, Gauteng, situated within the Eye of Africa Gold & Residential Estate,
3[…] C[… ] Road, A […] , E […] , Gauteng, Registration Division IR, registered
under Title Deed T1 […] (“the immovable property”) is declared specially
executable.
7
[2] The First Respondent is ordered to make payment to the Applicant, in the sum
of R261 198.77 owing as at 1 June 2025, together with interest thereon at the
prime rate as from time to time, compounded monthly, tempora morae, to date
of final payment.
[3] The Registrar of the above Honourable Court is authorised to issue a warrant of
execution in respect of the immovable property referred to in 1 above.
[4] The First Respondent is ordered to costs of suit on attorney client scale.
___________________________
LT MODIBA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
Appearances
For the Applicant: Adv Sikithi
Instructed by: Nicolene Cloete Rooseboom Attorneys
8
For the 1st Respondent: In Person
For the 2nd Respondent: No appearance
Date of hearing: 16 February 2026
Date of judgment: 25 February 2026
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives by email and publication on Case Lines and SAFLII. The time for the
handing down is deemed to be 10am.