South Africa Case Law

Kwadukuza Municipality v Consolidated Aone Trade and Invest 6 (Pty) Ltd [in Liquidation] and Others (1273/2023)

Kwadukuza Municipality v Consolidated Aone Trade and Invest 6 (Pty) Ltd [in Liquidation] and Others (1273/2023) [2025] ZASCA 86 (11 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1273/2023

Judges

Mbatha, Hughes, Baartman, Vally, Molitsoane

The SCA held that a municipality may not demand historical municipal debts beyond section 118(1)’s two-year period as a condition for a rates clearance certificate.

• Municipal Rates Clearance
• Payment Under Protest
• Prescription Act
• Refund Of Overpayment
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Municipal-rates-clearance

City of Johannesburg v Ferox Investments (Pty) Ltd (A5053/2016)

City of Johannesburg v Ferox Investments (Pty) Ltd (A5053/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 58 (10 March 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5053/2016

Judges

FHD Van Oosten, WL Wepener, LR Adams

The High Court dismissed the City of Johannesburg’s appeal over a disputed water account adjustment, holding that the City failed to prove the correctness of its manual posting.

• Municipal Clearance Certificates
• Statement And Debatement Of Account
• Onus Of Proof
• Water Consumption Charges
• Refund Of Overpayment
• Municipal-water-billing

Euphorbia (Pty) Ltd t/a Gallagher Estates v City of Johannesburg (A5052/2015)

Euphorbia (Pty) Ltd t/a Gallagher Estates v City of Johannesburg (A5052/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 548 (17 June 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A5052/2015

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

The municipality failed to discharge the onus of proving the accuracy of the contentious water meter, as the prescribed test for the meter was not conducted. The agreements under which the appellant paid the disputed amounts expressly reserved its rights and did not constitute admissions of liability. The appellant was entitled to a refund of overpayments, calculated based on reasonable estimates of actual water consumption, as the respondent did not challenge the methodology or figures presented. The appeal was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant the sum of R8,124,950…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Services Charges
• Water Meter Accuracy
• Onus Of Proof
• Payment Under Protest
• Refund Of Overpayment

Weare v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (401/2003)

Weare v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (401/2003) [2004] ZASCA 89; [2004] 4 All SA 520 (SCA); 2005 (4) SA 488 (SCA); 67 SATC 31 (29 September 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

401/2003

Judges

Scott, Farlam, Mthiyane, Cloete, Erasmus

The court held that an overpayment of VAT by a bookmaker was refundable under section 44(2)(a), not section 44(1), and was limited by prevailing practice.

• Value Added Tax
• Refund Of Overpayment
• Prevailing Practice
• Input And Output Tax
• Burden Of Proof
• Value-added-tax