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.

Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News

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.

15468

Recommended for you

Legislative Guidelines

The Electronic Deeds Registration Act

3339

The Electronic Deeds Registration System Act 2019 and the Property Practitioners Act of 2019 (repealing the Estate Agencies Affairs Act 112 of 1976) were signed into law by his Excellency the State President on 2 October 2019.

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

Money laundering and the Financial Intelligence Centre Act

4362

The sale of a property and the transfer of ownership along with the transfer of significant funds opens itself up to fraudulent activity which is why it is important to familiarise yourself with the risks surrounding money laundering and how the Financial Intelligence Centre Act aims to protect citizens.

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

Amendments to the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA)

8323

FICA is the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, 2001 as amended by the FIC Amendment Act 1 of 2017 which amendments came into operation on 2 April 2018.

Read More
Property Transfers | Bond Registrations | Snymans Attorneys
Legislative Guidelines

Subdivision of agricultural land

8513

There are several contexts in which it is necessary or desirable to subdivide agricultural land. Commonly, this happens when an individual wishes to leave property to his or her children through a will. While according to South African law, a testator may dispose of their property in any way he or she sees fit, there are certain limitations when it comes to subdividing agricultural land.

Read More
Property Transfers | Bond Registrations | Snymans Attorneys
Legislative Guidelines

4 reasons to subdivide your property

10274

Whether it’s about financially benefiting from land which you already own, splitting your assets between your children or simplifying your life by downsizing, there are a number of reasons why subdividing your property might be the right way to go.

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.

Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News

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.

15468