Salandia (Pty) Ltd v Vredenburg-Saldanha Municipality (197/86) [1987] ZASCA 108; [1988] 1 All SA 351 (A) (29 September 1987)

Salandia (Pty) Ltd v Vredenburg-Saldanha Municipality (197/86) [1987] ZASCA 108; [1988] 1 All SA 351 (A) (29 September 1987)

The court held that rates assessed and paid on the basis of the valuation roll in operation are due, regardless of whether the valuation was made on an incorrect basis. The condictio indebiti does not apply because the payments were not made indebite; the rates were owing according to the roll. However, the court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 108
Parties
Appellant: Salandia (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Vredenburg-Saldanha Municipality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 1987
Case Number
197/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; appellant's claim under condictio indebiti dismissed, but alternative claim for refund under section 91(1)(b) of the Municipal Ordinance upheld.
Judges
Grosskopf, Corbett, Smalberger, Vivier, Boshoff
Legal Topics
Municipal Rates, Valuation Rolls, Condictio Indebiti, Rectification of Errors, Refund of Overpaid Rates
Land and Property Civil Procedure Municipal Rates Valuation Rolls Condictio Indebiti Rectification of Errors Refund of Overpaid Rates

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salandia (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Vredenburg-Saldanha Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rates paid by the appellant were recoverable under the condictio indebiti due to alleged errors in the valuation roll.
  2. 2 Whether an incorrect method of valuation constitutes an 'error' under section 63(1) of the Valuation Ordinance, entitling the appellant to a refund under section 91(1)(b) of the Municipal Ordinance.
  3. 3 Whether the municipality was obliged to refund rates paid following rectification of the valuation roll.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that rates assessed and paid on the basis of the valuation roll in operation are due, regardless of whether the valuation was made on an incorrect basis. The condictio indebiti does not apply because the payments were not made indebite; the rates were owing according to the roll. However, the court found that the incorrect method of valuation constituted an 'error' under section 63(1) of the Valuation Ordinance. The Director's rectification of this error by interim valuation entitled the appellant to a refund under section 91(1)(b) of the Municipal Ordinance. The court interpreted 'rectification of an error by the Director' to include both administrative correction and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; appellant's claim under condictio indebiti dismissed, but alternative claim for refund under section 91(1)(b) of the Municipal Ordinance upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division is amended to include payment of R31,239.95 to the appellant.