Should Trustees Have the Authority Raise Special Levies Without Member Approval?

By Auren Freitas dos Santos

In community schemes governed under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act (STSMA), the concept of a “special levy” is as familiar as it is controversial. Unlike administrative and reserve levies—which are planned, budgeted, and approved annually by members at general meetings—special levies operate differently, and arguably, more autocratically.

Under section 3(3) of the STSMA, trustees are empowered to raise a special contribution by way of resolution. This contribution becomes payable immediately upon passing such a resolution—without any requirement for member consultation or approval. The only statutory safeguard lies in Prescribed Management Rule (PMR) 21(3)(a), which provides that such contributions may only be raised “if additional income is required to meet a necessary expense that cannot reasonably be delayed until provided for in the budget for the next financial year.”

In effect, this grants trustees unilateral authority to decide what constitutes a necessary and urgent expense. Once that decision is made, members must pay—whether or not they agree with the trustees’ judgment, whether or not they were consulted, and regardless of their personal financial situation.

This raises important questions.

While community scheme governance necessarily involves a degree of discretion and delegated authority, special levies can be significant—amounting to tens of thousands of rands, often payable within a short time frame. For pensioners, single parents, and financially vulnerable owners, such unanticipated demands can cause serious hardship.

What is especially striking is the contrast in procedural requirements. The law requires member approval for the body corporate’s annual budget (which sets administrative and reserve levies)—often after considerable discussion and negotiation. Yet when it comes to special levies, which can be equally or more burdensome, trustees may proceed without even informing members beforehand. The criteria—urgency and necessity—are inherently subjective. What qualifies as “necessary”? How is “urgency” assessed? And what checks exist to prevent overreach or poor judgment?

There is, of course, a practical rationale behind empowering trustees to act decisively.  The rationale for this framework appears to lie in efficiency and responsiveness.  Sectional title schemes are, after all, complex micro-communities. Community schemes—especially larger or ageing ones—frequently face emergencies: collapsed sewer lines, structural failures, fire compliance upgrades, or sudden security vulnerabilities. Delaying these interventions until the next AGM could escalate risks and costs. In such circumstances, empowering trustees to act decisively has clear value.

Yet the tension remains: how can schemes balance the need for responsiveness with the principles of transparency, accountability, and member consent?

The current legal framework places significant reliance on trustees’ discretion, competence, and good faith. But should it? Do owners truly understand the financial latitude granted to their trustees under section 3(3) and PMR 21(3)(a)?  Trustees are often laypersons volunteering their time. If they are not properly informed or fail to seek professional advice, they may raise special levies unnecessarily or prematurely. In more concerning scenarios, the process could be used to bypass anticipated member opposition or contentious discussion.

This is not to suggest that trustees cannot be trusted, but rather to ask: is it reasonable or sustainable for such a consequential financial decision to rest solely in their hands?

A Call for Conversation

These are not questions with easy answers. But they are questions that deserve to be asked—openly, and across the spectrum of stakeholders.

As South Africa continues to see rapid growth in sectional title and community scheme living, the legal and practical challenges around financial governance will only intensify. Transparency, participation, and reasonableness are not luxuries—they are foundational to sustainable and harmonious communal living.

Perhaps it is time for a broader national dialogue—among trustees, owners, managing agents, regulators, legal professionals, and lawmakers alike. If special levies are here to stay—and in all likelihood, they are—how can they be deployed more responsibly, more fairly, and with the informed consent of those who must ultimately bear the cost?

A Practical Interim Safeguard

Until the legislature considers introducing statutory thresholds or procedural checks, what can schemes do now to strengthen accountability?

Section 7(1) of the STSMA offers a valuable, and often underutilised, tool. This provision empowers members, by way of an ordinary resolution at a general meeting, to impose restrictions or directions on the trustees in the performance of their functions.

Using this mechanism, members could introduce a resolution at each AGM to restrict trustees from raising special levies without prior member approval—unless truly urgent circumstances prevent doing so. For example, a restriction could state:

“No special levy may be imposed by the trustees without first obtaining the approval of members at a special general meeting, passed by ordinary resolution. The notice convening such meeting must contain: (i) a comprehensive motivation for the levy; (ii) relevant cost estimates or quotations; and (iii) the terms of payment. In urgent situations, the trustees may invoke PMR 15(7)(a) to call the meeting on 7 days’ notice, provided the urgency and rationale are recorded and disclosed in the notice.”

This approach preserves the trustees’ ability to act quickly in emergencies, while reintroducing a measure of democratic oversight. If the resolution is not passed by the members, the special levy cannot proceed.

It is a practical, lawful step that schemes can take immediately—pending broader regulatory reform.

What are your thoughts? Should trustees retain this power unchecked? Or is it time for community schemes to rethink how special levies are authorised?

Specialist Community Scheme Attorney (LLB, LLM), Auren Freitas dos Santos, is a Director of The Advisory, a boutique consultancy specialising exclusively in community schemes law. Reach out to him via email at info@theadvisory.co.za to request an obligation-free quotation if you have questions about special levies in your sectional title scheme.