Can new owner be held responsible?

2017-10-18 06:02
Natalie Steenkamp

Natalie Steenkamp

Multimedia   ·   User Galleries   ·   News in Pictures Send us your pictures  ·  Send us your stories


I understand the matter about ­whether the municipality can hold a new homeowner responsible for the ­municipal debts of the previous owner has been decided on by the ­Constitutional Court (ConCourt).

The debate about this matter has also been running in the media over the last few years.

But is it really resolved?


The matter has been the topic of a lot of media exposure, as several of our courts have had a stab at interpreting the provisions of section 118 of the Local Government Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (“Systems Act”).

Section 118(3) of the Systems Act has been a great cause for concern for homeowners, as this section has been viewed as enabling a muni­cipality to hold a new homeowner responsible for the arrear municipal debts of a previous owner.

According to this section, an amount due for municipal service fees, ­property rates and other municipal taxes, levies and so forth is a charge upon the property and enjoys ­preference over any mortgage bond registered against the property, thereby creating a security provision in favour of the municipality for the payment of the outstanding debts.

No time limit is attached to this provision and it does not matter when the secured debt became due.

Last year, the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) declared section 118(3) constitutionally invalid.

The Constitutional Court, in ­Chantelle Jordaan and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, recently had to consider the meaning and constitutionality of this particular subsection.

The ConCourt concluded that a new owner is not liable for the previous owners’ historical municipal debts arising before transfer of the property.

The Court noted that section 118(3) does not require the charge against the property to be either registered or noted at the Registrar of Deeds.

There is no indication that the right given to the municipalities has an effect on third parties.

Further, there is no provision to fulfil the publicity requirement which is central to the functioning of limited real rights.

The section stands alone, ­unsupported and with no express wording holding any suggestion that it is transmissible.

In contrast, the Court looked at the Land and Agricultural Development Bank Act 15 of 2002, which was enacted soon after section 118(3) took effect.

This statute provides specifically that before the Bank makes any payment of a loan, it must convey in writing to the Registrar of Deeds information about the advance, which includes the amount due and the date.

The Registrar makes a note in its registers and endorses the title deed of the property to that effect.

This note creates a charge upon the property in favour of the Bank until the amount of the advance together with interest and costs has been paid.

Section 118(3), however, does not attempt to establish a similar publicity requirement in order to have the rights enforceable against third parties.

The two provisions use the same language, but the Land and Agri­cultural Development Bank Act holds the logical outcome that secures transmissibility, namely registration by public act in the register of deeds.

When legislation creates a trans­missible charge upon immovable property, registration in the deeds registry is required.

Its absence from section 118(3) provides a clear indication that the charge takes effect only against the current owner and not the successors.

The Court further considered that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution prohibits arbitrary dispossession of property, which would happen if debts without historical limit are imposed on a new owner.

To avoid unjustified arbitrariness in violation of section 25(1) of the Constitution, the Court held that section 118(3) of the Systems Act must be interpreted so that the charge it imposes does not survive transfer to a new owner.

The ConCourt therefore found that section 118(3) is not unconstitutional and that it should be interpreted so that the charge does not survive transfer to the new owner and thereby confirmed that, upon transfer of a property, a new owner is not liable for debts arising before transfer from the charge upon the property under section 118(3).

By so doing, our highest court finally confirmed the position and provided much-needed legal certainty on the matter.

  • Natalie Steenkamp, associate, Phatshoane Henney Attorneys

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.