Can I be held ransom with a rates clearance certificate for future municipal debts?

“I’m in the process of selling my house. When I requested a property rates clearance certificate from my municipality they requested me to pay the estimated rates until the end of their financial year, which would be months after my house has been transferred to the new owner. Surely I can’t be held ransom for these future rates just because I need a rates clearance certificate?”

In short the answer according to a recent Supreme Court of Appeal case is “no,” you cannot be held liable for payment of the property rates for the entire financial year of the municipality when requesting a rates clearance certificate. 

In the case of Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Amber Mountain Investments 3 (Pty) Ltd the municipality required Amber Mountain Investments to pay rates from 1 July 2009 until the end of its financial year, which would be a few months after the date of the registration of the property transfer. Amber Mountain Investments paid the amount of R2 281 014.68 under protest in order to obtain the rates clearance certificate needed for lodgement at the deeds office to register the transfer. However, they were not happy with the fact that they were accountable for R1 066 532.00 more than was actually due and took the municipality to court.

The question the court had to consider was whether a property owner in the case of a sale of property, is liable to pay rates calculated until the end of the financial year of the municipality or until date of registration of the property transfer?

The court held that the intention of the legislature was clear from Section 118 of the Municipal Systems Act that municipalities were only entitled to recover municipal debts due two years prior to the date of application for the clearance certificate, and that the municipality was not entitled to recover future municipal debts for periods which extended beyond this date, irrespective of whether the municipality had a policy in place which determined otherwise. The court accordingly found in favour of Amber Mountain Investments.

If your municipality is accordingly asking you to pay rates estimated until after the date of application for the rates clearance certificate, you should ask your attorney to assist you to bring the outcome of this case to the municipality’s attention.

July 14, 2017
Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Nearly 5 decades after its original enactment, South Africa’s copyright regime is undergoing one of the most significant reforms in its history. The Copyright Amendment Bill [B13F-2017] introduces modern protections to secure the financial and digital interests of authors and performers, thereby strengthening their economic rights in an increasingly digital world. While parts of the Bill remain under constitutional review, a landmark 2025 court ruling has already enforced critical protections for users with disabilities. This article breaks down the primary measures intended to safeguard South African creativity.

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The excitement of a merger or acquisition often sits in the “big picture” strategy, but the success of the deal lives or dies in the details. Due diligence is not a box-ticking exercise. It is the point at which assumptions are tested, risks are priced, and uncomfortable questions are asked. This article explores why looking before you leap, by conducting a thorough due diligence, is the golden rule of mergers & acquisitions (“M&A”) transactions.

Customary marriages stand equal

Customary marriages stand equal

In a landmark judgment delivered on 21 January 2026, the Constitutional Court pronounced welcomed clarity on the interplay between customary marriages, civil marriages, and antenuptial contracts (“ANC”). The Court, by majority decision in VVC v JRM and Others (CCT202/24) [2026] ZACC 2 (21 January 2026) , declined to confirm a High Court order that had declared section 10(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (“the Recognition Act”) unconstitutional. The majority decision powerfully reaffirmed the equal constitutional status of customary marriages and established that spouses cannot unilaterally alter their matrimonial property regime without judicial oversight.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest