Maize Board v Epol (Pty) Ltd (9874/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 99; 2009 (3) SA 110 (D); 71 SATC 236 (18 December 2008)

Maize Board v Epol (Pty) Ltd (9874/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 99; 2009 (3) SA 110 (D); 71 SATC 236 (18 December 2008)

The court held that the levies imposed under the Marketing Act and Maize Marketing Scheme do not constitute 'taxation' for the purposes of section 11(a)(iii) of the Prescription Act. The levies were not imposed upon the public as a whole or a substantial sector thereof, but rather on a restricted group of persons dealing or producing maize. The revenues collected were not utilised for public benefit, as only a select group benefited, and the levies were not intended to raise public revenue for government purposes. The fact that VAT was payable on the levies further indicated that they were not taxes. The court found no material distinction between this case and Maize Board v Tiger Oats,...

Citation
[2008] ZAKZHC 99
Parties
Plaintiff: Maize Board; Defendant: Epol (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2008
Case Number
9874/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Decided as Separated Issue
Outcome
Defendant's special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Tshabalala JP
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Levies Under Marketing Act, Definition of Taxation, Regulatory Fees, Public Purpose Requirement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Levies Under Marketing Act Definition of Taxation Regulatory Fees Public Purpose Requirement

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maize Board

Plaintiff

Epol (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Decided as Separated Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the levies imposed under the Marketing Act and Maize Marketing Scheme constitute 'taxation' for purposes of section 11(a)(iii) of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether a thirty-year or three-year prescription period applies to the plaintiff's claim for levies.
  3. 3 Whether the amendments to the Scheme in 1995 materially distinguish this case from Maize Board v Tiger Oats.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the levies imposed under the Marketing Act and Maize Marketing Scheme do not constitute 'taxation' for the purposes of section 11(a)(iii) of the Prescription Act. The levies were not imposed upon the public as a whole or a substantial sector thereof, but rather on a restricted group of persons dealing or producing maize. The revenues collected were not utilised for public benefit, as only a select group benefited, and the levies were not intended to raise public revenue for government purposes. The fact that VAT was payable on the levies further indicated that they were not taxes. The court found no material distinction between this case and Maize Board v Tiger Oats,...

Court Disposition

Defendant's special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Defendant's special plea is upheld.
  • Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.