Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Property buyers may be liable for historical debt
In a recent judgement handed down by the Supreme Court of Appeal, the court ruled that a hypothec created by section 118(3) of the Municipal Systems Act 32, 2000 (the “Act”) in favour of a municipality over immovable property for outstanding municipal debt is not extinguished by a sale in execution and subsequent transfer of the property. The municipal debt includes; municipal service fees, surcharges on fees, property rates and other municipal taxes and levies incurred in relation to the property.
INTRODUCTION
In the matter between City Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v PJ Mitchell (38/2015) (2015) ZASCA, the court held that the right of the municipality to perfect its security in terms of the hypothec can be enforced at any time before the debt prescribes (a term of 30 years) and, further, that section 118(1) of the Act, in terms of which an owner of a property is liable for municipal debt dating back only two years in order to obtain a rates clearance certificate, does not limit the duration of the hypothec.
The hypothec enjoys preference over any mortgage bond registered over the property.
THE OUTCOME OF THE JUDGEMENT
The effect of the judgment is that the municipality is entitled to perfect its hypothec over immovable property, which ranks in preference to any other security over the property, for any outstanding municipal debt in relation to that property incurred within the last 30 years. This appears to be the case regardless of whether the property has been sold in execution, by private treaty or by public auction and transferred to a new owner.
In order to safeguard against risks which may be created by or which may arise following the judgment, purchasers of immovable property and indeed creditors funding the purchase of such properties, should ensure that adequate contractual protections are put in place.
These may include warranties from the seller that there is no outstanding municipal debt in respect of the relevant property, and an indemnification in favour of the purchaser, that should any future claim relating to outstanding municipal debt arise against the purchaser (or any of its successors or assigns), as the new owner of the property, the seller shall indemnify the new owner for such claims. Unfortunately these contractual protections will not be obtainable in sales of execution where the property is disposed of by the Sheriff. It has been suggested that purchasers take out insurance should there be a concern.
Latest News
Retrenchment Remedies – Getting The Process Back On Track
By Bradley Workman-Davies, Director and Mishkah Abdool Sattar, Candidate Attorney Retrenchments in South African law are regulated in terms of [...]
The Banking Regulation Review – Edition 10
INTRODUCTION: Banking Regulation Review South Africa has an advanced banking system, backed by a sound legal and regulatory framework that [...]
When Can Taxpayers Rely On Prescription Of Assessments?
By Ernest Mazansky, Director, Head of Tax Practice, Werksmans Tax (Pty) Ltd INTRODUCTION As is widely known, the general principle [...]
Does Validity Of A Contract Trump All Considerations In Review Of Agreements With Organs Of State?
By Jennifer Smit, Director Recently, Theron J handed down a judgment in the Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality / Asla Construction [...]
The Legal Position Concerning Strict Compliance With The Stipulations In A Demand Guarantee
By Boitumelo Rammala, Associate and Dimakatso Mogafe, Candidate Attorney Reviewed By Jennifer Smit, Director Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd ("Sasol") and [...]
IP & LEGACY
By Donvay Wegierski, Director NELSON MANDELA INTERNATIONAL DAY 18 July is Nelson Mandela International Day in remembrance and in [...]
