A house bought in cash, a life turned upside down: The levy dispute that ended in sequestration

A residential property dispute in Sunbird Village, Elspark, Germiston has escalated into a complex legal battle involving unpaid levies, asset attachments, sequestration proceedings, and serious questions about accountability and professional credentials.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between a homeowner and the Body Corporate, with both sides presenting conflicting accounts of payments, communications, and legal processes.

House purchased in cash

Celani Mlangeni bought his house in Sunbird Village, Elspark, Germiston, for cash in 2019 and only moved into the property in November that year.

However, he says that shortly after moving in, he received a summons in March 2020 claiming he owed approximately R12,000 in outstanding levies.

At the time, he says, the monthly levy was about R2,900.

He said he was surprised by the claim because he believed the outstanding amount related to a period before he occupied the property.

He alleges that when he questioned the charges, Henriet de Ru, who was acting on behalf of the Body Corporate, personally served him with a letter of demand and warned that legal action would follow if payment was not made.

"I was shocked by this," he said.

Court records seen by Public Dispatch, however, indicate that the Body Corporate had already obtained a default judgment relating to the property on 23 March 2019, months before Mlangeni took occupation.

Whether the debt attached to the property or the previous owner forms part of the dispute between the parties.

Requests for explanations

Mlangeni says he repeatedly sought explanations from the de Ru and their attorneys regarding how the alleged arrears had been calculated. He was unable to obtain detailed statements.

He further alleges that his electricity supply was reduced and that he was billed R1,500 for the service.

Within four months of moving into the property, he says the alleged arrears had increased to more than R15,000 despite his requests for an explanation.

"I couldn't understand how the amount kept increasing when nobody would tell me exactly what I owed," he said.

Sheriff attachment and auction

According to Mlangeni, the sheriff was subsequently instructed to attach his movable assets unless he settled the outstanding amount of R15,280 within 14 days.

He says he paid the amount in full, believing the matter had been resolved.

A few weeks later, however, the sheriff returned to attach his belongings. Mlangeni says he produced proof of payment, after which the sheriff contacted de Ru, who confirmed the arrears had been settled and the attachment did not proceed.

But he alleges the sheriff later returned with a removal truck and, despite again producing proof of payment, proceeded to remove household furniture after allegedly receiving instructions from de Ru. Among the items removed, he says, were his couches, home theatre system and most of the furniture in the house.

He later received an email informing him that the attached assets had been sold at auction.

Mlangeni claims the auction records accounted for only a handful of items and that the majority of the furniture removed could not be traced.

"The Body Corporate could not explain what became of the R15,280 payment I'd already made before the attachment. Instead, I was informed that there is a shortfall of approximately R900 after the auction.

Sequestration proceedings

According to Mlangeni, the Body Corporate launched sequestration proceedings in 2020, citing the alleged R900 shortfall following the sale of his assets.

He says that despite continuing to pay his monthly levies, although sometimes below the full amount because he had lost his job, the outstanding balance continued to increase.

He says an agreement was reached allowing him to make reduced payments until he secured employment. After obtaining work, he says he increased his monthly payments beyond the agreed amount.

Despite this, he alleges that by 2021 he received statements claiming his arrears had grown to approximately R74,000.

"I repeatedly requested a detailed statements showing the amounts billed and payments received but they never sent them. They simply told me they didn't have time to answer my questions and that I must just pay," he said.

"I could not continue paying amounts that I could not verify, especially after what had already happened," he said.

Debt counselling

In 2023, Mlangeni applied for debt counseling. He says the debt counsellor formally notified de Ru and she acknowledged the process. According to him, payments were thereafter made through the debt counsellor while he also continued making additional direct payments to the Body Corporate.

Despite this arrangement, the Body Corporate instituted sequestration proceedings in the Pretoria High Court during 2023.

He says he was initially informed that the matter would be heard on 25 August 2025 but later discovered it had been moved to the following day. According to him, the Body Corporate argued that he had never paid any levies.

He maintains that he presented proof of payment to the court but believes the evidence was overlooked.

A sequestration order was granted in January 2026.

Body Corporate rejects allegations

Responding to the allegations, de Ru, denied that Mlangeni had been treated unfairly

.

She said all levy statements and invoices had been provided to him and maintained that he had failed to pay his levies despite repeated requests.

"They are making all these accusations without any proof. We told him to approach the Ombud Service, but he didn't do that. They do not understand that levies need to be paid. We are trying to communicate with him and other owners, but they're not listening to us, instead they are threatening us," she said.

De Ru said a number of owners in the complex were in arrears and some had sold their properties because of their outstanding debts.

"There is no unfairness here. We even told him that if he went for debt counselling he would still be responsible for paying his levies," she said.

She added that at least two property owners had been sequestrated after failing to pay levies.

"I've been in legal practice since 2008 and unfortunately they don't understand how the law works. We're trying to solve these matters within the ambit of the law," she said.

Questions over legal status

Mlangeni says he began questioning and investigating the professional status of de Ru, who had been acting and speaking on behalf of the Sunbird Village Body Corporate throughout the dispute.

Public Dispatch has seen a letter from the Legal Practice Council (LPC), it reads in part:

"Please be advised that we have been unable to trace any registered legal practitioner operating under the name or style of Henriet De Ru."

Relying on that correspondence, Mlangeni opened a criminal case against de Ru for pretending to be an advocate. But that case was withdrawn within hour after being open. Police records show that it was withdrawn by the Senior Public Prosecutor.

Asked about the LPC letter, de Ru disputed its implication.

"I can assure you that I am an advocate. I work as a consultant and mediator. I do not represent members of the public in court or take instructions directly from the public."

She further claimed that the Legal Practice Council had not correctly reflected her status following changes introduced to the legal profession in 2018. When asked to provide a Legal Practice Council registration or practice number to support her claim, she did not do so.

Broader Implications

This dispute underscores common challenges in sectional title schemes: difficulties in transparent levy accounting, the heavy-handed use of attachment and sequestration remedies, and the importance of clear communication between owners and managing bodies.

While the Body Corporate maintains it is simply enforcing legal obligations on multiple defaulters, Mlangeni alleges irregularities, including potential mishandling of seized assets and misrepresentation of professional status.