Historical municipal debt

Prior to the landmark decision in Jordaan and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others [2017] there was some uncertainty around debts incurred by previous owners of a property.

Verbal vs. written contracts for conveyancing

Previously, municipalities were of the opinion that Section 118(3) of the Municipal Systems Act, 32 of 2000 created a ‘charge’ to the benefit of the municipality. This charge was seen to rank higher than the rights of the bondholder and to last beyond transfer. The consequence of this interpretation by the Municipalities was that in some instances, municipalities refused to supply services to the new owner until the historical debt was settled. Further, it was stated that the property could then be attached and sold to cover the historical amount.

The rather strict view has since been reinterpreted by the courts through a number of high profile cases such as Jordaan and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others.

How the court’s decision impacts purchasers

In accordance with the court’s decision in the Jordaan case, municipalities cannot hold new owners liable for previously incurred debts. The court held that the municipalities are responsible for the collection of the outstanding amounts and such amounts cannot be transferred to the new owner.

In addition, the municipality cannot withhold any services to the new owner and would have to exhaust all remedies at their disposal to collect the outstanding amount due from the previous owner.

It should be noted, however, that although this finding makes a significant step to protect purchasers, a prospective buyer should still be wary and perform due diligence before any transaction is entered.

Obligations placed upon the seller

Section 118(1) of the Act provides that a Registrar of Deeds may not register a property transfer without a rates clearance certificate which acts as proof that all amounts due in connection with the property have been paid for the preceding two years.

Due to the implications of the judgement, municipalities have been more vigilant in their collection of unpaid accounts. For the certificate to be issued, the municipality will issue a clearance figure which is then to be paid by the seller. While it is possible for the seller to pay only the amount due for the preceding 2 years in order to obtain the necessary rates clearance certificate, he or she will remain liable for any additional amounts not covered by this payment. As such, the municipality may claim any unpaid fees from the seller after transfer has taken place using normal debt collecting measures.

Action by the municipality

The municipality where the property is situated will be within their rights to apply for a court interdict to stop the transfer of the property if the seller chooses to pay only the Section 118(1) amount. If such an order is granted, the municipality would then have to act with urgency to take the necessary steps to obtain an order attaching the property. Once the attachment is registered in the Deeds Office, the Registrar of Deeds will not allow transfer until the interdict is uplifted, thus forcing the seller to pay the full amount.

Sellers should be advised to pay the full amount owing in terms of the clearance figures to ensure that no delays are experienced and that no action is instituted against them after transfer.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.

Recommended for you

Amendments to the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA)
Legislative Guidelines

The FIC Act: How it’s tackling money laundering in South Africa[post_view before=""]

The Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) defines money laundering as “the process used by criminals to hide, conceal or disguise the nature, source, location, disposition or movement of the proceeds of unlawful activities or any interest which anyone has in such proceeds.”

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

Court ruling: The applicability of the Consumer Protection Act in rental agreements[post_view before=""]

In the recently decided case of Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd vs N Tambwe and two other occupants of a rental house in Wynberg, the Western Cape Division of the High Court was asked to rule on a) whether the Consumer Protection Act applied to the case in question and b) whether the enforcement of the forfeiture clause contained in clause 14 of the lease agreement was contrary to public policy.

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

Non-resident sellers: Make sure you comply with SARS requirements[post_view before=""]

Non-resident property sellers should be aware of the requirements of section 35A of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. The section stipulates that an amount equal to 5% (individuals), 10% (companies) or 15% (trusts) of the proceeds of a sale of immovable property must be withheld and paid over to SARS within 14 days after “the date on which the amount was so withheld” – this is typically the date of registration of transfer. An exception is if the parties agree that the purchase price be paid before registration, in which case the 14 days will be calculated from such payment date.

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

Comment on the Expropriation Bill, 2020[post_view before=""]

This article seeks to highlight some aspects of expropriation of land by looking at the current section 25 of the Constitution and the Expropriation Bill 2020, issued by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Legislative Guidelines

Land claims and their impact on the registration of mortgage bonds[post_view before=""]

When it comes to commercial lending transactions, the lender – usually a commercial or corporate division of a bank – may require confirmation that there are no land claims in process in respect of the property or properties that will form part of the security to be registered in the lending structure.

Read More

Need more Snymans content?

Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Historical municipal debt

Prior to the landmark decision in Jordaan and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others [2017] there was some uncertainty around debts incurred by previous owners of a property.

Verbal vs. written contracts for conveyancing

Previously, municipalities were of the opinion that Section 118(3) of the Municipal Systems Act, 32 of 2000 created a ‘charge’ to the benefit of the municipality. This charge was seen to rank higher than the rights of the bondholder and to last beyond transfer. The consequence of this interpretation by the Municipalities was that in some instances, municipalities refused to supply services to the new owner until the historical debt was settled. Further, it was stated that the property could then be attached and sold to cover the historical amount.

The rather strict view has since been reinterpreted by the courts through a number of high profile cases such as Jordaan and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others.

How the court’s decision impacts purchasers

In accordance with the court’s decision in the Jordaan case, municipalities cannot hold new owners liable for previously incurred debts. The court held that the municipalities are responsible for the collection of the outstanding amounts and such amounts cannot be transferred to the new owner.

In addition, the municipality cannot withhold any services to the new owner and would have to exhaust all remedies at their disposal to collect the outstanding amount due from the previous owner.

It should be noted, however, that although this finding makes a significant step to protect purchasers, a prospective buyer should still be wary and perform due diligence before any transaction is entered.

Obligations placed upon the seller

Section 118(1) of the Act provides that a Registrar of Deeds may not register a property transfer without a rates clearance certificate which acts as proof that all amounts due in connection with the property have been paid for the preceding two years.

Due to the implications of the judgement, municipalities have been more vigilant in their collection of unpaid accounts. For the certificate to be issued, the municipality will issue a clearance figure which is then to be paid by the seller. While it is possible for the seller to pay only the amount due for the preceding 2 years in order to obtain the necessary rates clearance certificate, he or she will remain liable for any additional amounts not covered by this payment. As such, the municipality may claim any unpaid fees from the seller after transfer has taken place using normal debt collecting measures.

Action by the municipality

The municipality where the property is situated will be within their rights to apply for a court interdict to stop the transfer of the property if the seller chooses to pay only the Section 118(1) amount. If such an order is granted, the municipality would then have to act with urgency to take the necessary steps to obtain an order attaching the property. Once the attachment is registered in the Deeds Office, the Registrar of Deeds will not allow transfer until the interdict is uplifted, thus forcing the seller to pay the full amount.

Sellers should be advised to pay the full amount owing in terms of the clearance figures to ensure that no delays are experienced and that no action is instituted against them after transfer.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.