South Africa Case Law

Jan Zeevaart v Kleinfontein Boerebelange Koop BPK (A373/13)

Jan Zeevaart v Kleinfontein Boerebelange Koop BPK (A373/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 489 (3 December 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A373/13

Judges

R M Keightley, D S Molefe

The court found that the appellant, though no longer a member, remained an 'interested party' and was contractually bound by the respondent's rules, including the obligation to pay all amounts invoiced. The appellant was in arrears, as payments made were allocated according to the respondent's rules, not at the appellant's discretion. The Bertelsman J Order required written notice to the appellant at both his residential and attorney's address, but the material requirement was that the appellant received notice. Since the appellant undisputedly received notice, substantial compliance was achi…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Eviction
• Contractual Obligations
• Service Disconnection

Jacobs & Smilowski CC v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (47730/2011)

Jacobs & Smilowski CC v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (47730/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 193 (10 July 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

47730/2011

Judge

E M Kubushi

The High Court held that Tshwane could levy “non-permitted use” rates on a residential property used for business and could disconnect services for arrears.

• Municipal Rates
• Non Permitted Use
• Credit Control By Laws
• Service Disconnection
• Contempt Of Court
• Municipal-rates

Body Corporate Croftdene Mall v Ethekwini Municipality (603/2010)

Body Corporate Croftdene Mall v Ethekwini Municipality (603/2010) [2011] ZASCA 188; [2012] 1 All SA 1 (SCA); 2012 (4) SA 169 (SCA) (10 October 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

603/2010

Judges

Cloete, Heher, Maya, Cachalia, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 102(1) of the Systems Act empowers a municipality to consolidate accounts and disconnect services for non-payment of rates, provided no dispute exists as contemplated by section 102(2). The appellant failed to raise a genuine dispute regarding a specific amount before enforcement measures were implemented; its communications merely sought a write-off and acknowledged liability. The appellant did not prove any portion of the debt attributable to previous entities, nor did it establish a breach of the in duplum rule. The municipality acted lawfully…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Rates
• Service Disconnection
• Consolidation Of Accounts
• In Duplum Rule
• Sectional Title Liability
• Credit Control And Debt Collection