Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Mohlobuli and Another v Mogale City Municipality (13167/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 612 (15 August 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that the municipality is only entitled to demand payment of municipal debts incurred during the two years preceding the application for a clearance certificate, as provided by section 118(1)(b) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act. The additional amount claimed by the respondent as historical debt falls outside the statutory period and cannot be enforced as a precondition for issuing the certificate. The applicants, having paid the required amount, are entitled to the clearance certificate. The court further noted that section 89 of the Insolvency Act limits the municipality's preference to claims arising within the relevant statutory period. Accordingly, the respondent is ordered to furnish the clearance certificate and pay the costs of the application.

Court disposition

Application granted; respondent ordered to furnish clearance certificate and pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to furnish the applicants with a clearance certificate in terms of section 118(1)(b) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 within ten days of this order.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.

02

Material facts

Parties

TD Mohlobuli

Applicant

Keith Elwyn Lutchima N.O.

Applicant

Mogale City Municipality

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Amount Paid for Clearance Certificate: ZAR 19,033.17
  • Historical Debt Claimed by Municipality: ZAR 7,856.06

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Urgent Application / First Instance

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants contend that section 118(1)(b) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act requires payment only of municipal debts incurred during the two years preceding the application for a clearance certificate. They argue that the municipality's demand for payment of historical debt outside this period is unlawful and that, having paid the required amount, they are entitled to the certificate. They further submit that section 89 of the Insolvency Act limits the municipality's preference to claims arising within the statutory period.
Respondent
The respondent argues that it is entitled to demand payment of all outstanding municipal debts, including historical debt predating the two-year statutory period, before issuing a clearance certificate. It maintains that the certificate should not be furnished until the total amount, including historical debt, is paid.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    City of Johannesburg v Caplin N.O. and Another 2006 (5) SA 10 (SCA)

    A municipality may not refuse to issue a clearance certificate if all municipal debts incurred during the two years preceding the application have been paid; historical debts outside this period cannot be enforced as a precondition for transfer.

  2. 02

    Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000; Insolvency Act 24 of 1936

    Section 118(1) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act requires payment of debts for the two years preceding the application for a clearance certificate, and section 89 of the Insolvency Act limits the municipality's preference to claims within the statutory period.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that the municipality is only entitled to demand payment of municipal debts incurred during the two years preceding the application for a clearance certificate, as provided by section 118(1)(b) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act. The additional amount claimed by the respondent as historical debt falls outside the statutory period and cannot be enforced as a precondition for issuing the certificate. The applicants, having paid the required amount, are entitled to the clearance certificate. The court further noted that section 89 of the Insolvency Act limits the municipality's preference to claims arising within the relevant statutory period. Accordingly, the respondent is ordered to furnish the clearance certificate and pay the costs of the application.

Obiter and limits

  • Municipalities must adhere strictly to the statutory requirements when demanding payment for clearance certificates and cannot extend their claims beyond the prescribed period.
  • The protection afforded to municipalities under section 118(1) is balanced by the need to facilitate property transfers, especially in the context of insolvent estates.

Court disposition

Application granted; respondent ordered to furnish clearance certificate and pay costs.

  • The respondent is ordered to furnish the applicants with a clearance certificate in terms of section 118(1)(b) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 within ten days of this order.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.

Source and reliance status

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Judgment

[2014] ZAGPPHC 612

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

CASE NO. 13167/2013

Date: 15 AUGUST 2014

In the matter between:

TD MOHLOBULI..................................................................................................FIRST

APPLICANT

KEITH

ELWYN LUTCHIMA N.O. …...........................................................SECOND

APPLICANT

and

MOGALE

CITY MUNICIPALITY..............................................................................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

BREDENKAMP AJ:

[1] In this matter, the respondents seek an order compelling the respondents to furnish the first applicants with a clearance certificate in terms of Section 118 (1) (b) of the Local Government: Municipal System Act 32 of 2000( As Amended) within 10 (Ten) days of this order. A cost order that the Respondent to pay the costs of this application is also sought.

[2] The second applicant being the trustee of the insolvent Estate, was joined as such by way of a court order granted of 16 August 2013.

[3] It is common cause that first applicant purchased portion 0 of Erf […] W[…] P[…], Johannesburg known as 51 T[…] street W[…] P[…], Johannesburg on 12 July 2012 out of an insolvent estate. First applicant’s attorneys requested clearance figures from the respondent on 31 October 2012 and it was provided on 31 October 2012. In terms of the figures provided first applicant has to pay the amount of R19033.17 to the respondent. Payment was effected.

[4] It appears from the clearance certificate dated 31 October 2012, that the amount of R19033.17, comprises municipal service fees, property rates and other municipal taxes, levies and duty’s during the 2 years preceding the date of application. However the respondents also requested an additional payment of R7856.06 which, as it describes it in the certificate, amounts to historical debt in respect of the period which preceded the aforesaid 2 years.

[5] Respondents refuses the issue the necessary clearance certificate until the total amount of R 26889.23 is paid.

[6] Section 118(1) and 118(2) of the local Government Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (As Amended) states that a Registrar of Deeds may not register the transfer of property unless a clearance certificate is issued which certifies that all amounts that became due in connection with that property for Municipal services fee, property rates and taxes etc. during the two years preceding the date of application for the certificate, have fully been paid. These sections also state that in the case of the transfer of property of trustee of insolvent estate, its provisions are subjective to section 89 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936.

[7] The Law applicable to the facts in casu was succinctly set out in the matter of City of Johannesburg vs Caplin N.O. and Another 2006(5) SA 10 SCA at p 27. According to this paragraph; ”No property may be transferred unless the clearance certificate certifies full of Municipal debts that have become due during a period of 2(two) years before the date of application for the certificate (i) (ii) the preference accorded by section 118(3) in favour of the Municipality over that of a holder of a mortgage bond is limited to claims which fell during the period laid down in section 89(1) i.e. two years prior to the date of sequestration or liquidation up to the date of transfer.

[8] The “historical debts” of R7856.06 in casu, falls outside the relevant period of 2 years.

[9] The Respondent is obligated to furnish first and second applicant with a clearance certificate, as the amount of R19033.17 has been paid.

[10] As the applicant is successful with its application it follows that it also entitled to its costs.

[11] In the view of the above, the attached draft order marked “X” and signed by myself, is made order of court.

_______

BREDENKAMP

IM

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

City of Johannesburg v Caplin N.O. and Another 2006 (5) SA 10 (SCA)

Case cited

Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Insolvency Act 24 of 1936

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.