Eskom v Bonjanala Platinum District Municipality and Another (560/2003) [2004] ZASCA 118; [2005] 3 All SA 108 (SCA); 2005 (4) SA 31 (SCA); 67 SATC 290 (30 November 2004)

Eskom v Bonjanala Platinum District Municipality and Another (560/2003) [2004] ZASCA 118; [2005] 3 All SA 108 (SCA); 2005 (4) SA 31 (SCA); 67 SATC 290 (30 November 2004)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 11(a)(iii) of the Prescription Act, which provides a 30-year prescription period for debts in respect of taxation, operates only in favour of the State as taxgatherer and not in favour of taxpayers seeking refunds. Payments made by Eskom, even if believed to be due, were not taxes properly assessed and thus do not constitute debts in respect of taxation for the purposes of section 11(a)(iii). Eskom's claims for refunds of regional service council levies wrongly paid are subject to the general three-year prescription period under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. As Eskom's claims had prescribed under the three-year period, the appeal was...

Citation
[2004] ZASCA 118
Parties
Appellant: Eskom; Respondent: Bojanala Platinum District Municipality; Respondent: Rustenburg District Council
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2004
Case Number
560/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Scott, Cameron, Heher, Comrie, Jafta
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Condictio Indebiti, Refund of Taxes, Regional Service Council Levies
Tax Law Civil Procedure Prescription Act Condictio Indebiti Refund of Taxes Regional Service Council Levies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom

Appellant

Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

Respondent

Rustenburg District Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 11(a)(iii) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, which provides a 30-year prescription period for debts in respect of taxation, apply to claims for refunds of regional service council levies paid without liability?
  2. 2 Is Eskom's claim for refund of RSC levies subject to the three-year prescription period under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act?
  3. 3 Does the 30-year prescription period operate in favour of the taxpayer or only the taxgatherer (the State)?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 11(a)(iii) of the Prescription Act, which provides a 30-year prescription period for debts in respect of taxation, operates only in favour of the State as taxgatherer and not in favour of taxpayers seeking refunds. Payments made by Eskom, even if believed to be due, were not taxes properly assessed and thus do not constitute debts in respect of taxation for the purposes of section 11(a)(iii). Eskom's claims for refunds of regional service council levies wrongly paid are subject to the general three-year prescription period under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. As Eskom's claims had prescribed under the three-year period, the appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.