THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case No: 497/20
In the matter between:

THE RAND WEST CITY LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY

APPELLANT

and

QUILL ASSOCIATES (PTY) LTD

FIRST RESPONDENT

THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH

SECOND RESPONDENT
COURT (GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)

Neutral citation:
Rand West City Local Municipality v Quill Associates (Pty) Ltd
and Another (Case no 497/20) [2021] ZASCA 150 (26
October 2021)
Coram:
NAVSA ADP, MATHOPO, MOLEMELA, MOKGOHLOA AND
GORVEN JJA
Heard:
09 September 2021

Delivered:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives by email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal
website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be
09h45 on 26 October 2021.
Summary: Practice and Procedure – validity of writ of execution – Registrar
issuing writ not engaging in administrative action – not reviewable under the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 - question is whether writ is in
accordance with court order – respondent caused writ to be issued outside of terms
of court order – impermissibly providing for compound interest and value added
tax (VAT) – writ liable to be set aside.

ORDER

On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (Botes AJ) sitting
as court of first instance:
1.
The appeal is upheld with costs of two counsel, where so employed.
2.
The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following
order:
‘1.
The “writ of execution – incorporeal property” under case numbers
36264/2013 and 362645/2013 in favour of the first respondent as execution
creditor, in terms of which the Sheriff was directed to attach and take into
execution the sum of R7 965 470.56 plus interest at the rate of 15.5%
calculated per annum and compounded monthly as from 11 July 2018 to
date of payment, and other taxed costs and charges besides the costs of
the Sheriff against the “incorporeal property” of the applicant held at First
Rand Bank (Randfontein) cheque account number 672-387-440-45 is set
aside.
2. The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.’

JUDGMENT

Mokgohloa JA (Navsa ADP, Mathopo, Molemela and Gorven JJA concurring)
[1] This appeal concerns the validity of a writ of execution issued at the
instance of the first respondent, Quill Associates (Pty) Ltd (Quill), purportedly in
accordance with an order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (the
trial court), dated 31 July 2015. The writ was issued against the appellant, the Rand
West Local Municipality (the Municipality).

[2] The background facts are largely common cause. During 1998 a
predecessor of the appellant1 concluded an agreement with Quill, in terms of which
it purchased a software program (the BIQ program) from the latter. In terms of the
agreement, it was entitled to the necessary support and maintenance for a period
of one year, renewable annually. During 2004 the predecessor underwent a name
change. This resulted in a new agreement being entered into in terms of which it
was not expected to pay for the BIQ program again, but was to continue to pay
licence fees, as it did in the previous years. In July 2011, one of the appellant’s
predecessors gave notice to terminate the 2004 agreement and informed the first
respondent that it would continue using the BIQ program on a month-to-month
basis. An extended exchange of correspondence and interactions ensued
between the formerly disparate municipalities, now the appellant, and Quill
concerning the continued use of the BIQ program. Litigation was threatened as no
new agreement could be reached concerning the future use of the BIQ program.
During this period the appellant’s predecessors continued using the program
without paying licence fees. This caused the first respondent to institute action
against the appellant’s two predecessors in the trial court, claiming interdictory and
monetary relief. The claim was based on an infringement of Quill’s copyright in the
BIQ program in terms of s 24(1) of the Copyright Act2.

[3] After hearing evidence and argument, the trial court (Potterill J) held that
they had infringed Quill’s copyright and granted the interdictory relief claimed in
the summons. It also concluded that a reasonable royalty was a substantive
remedy. Thus, it granted a monetary judgment in favour of the first respondent
together with ‘interest on the said amounts at a rate of 15.5% per annum ad

1 The appellant became a successor in title of the Randfontein and Westonaria municipalities after
the amalgamation of the aforementioned two municipalities on 3 August 2016.
2  S24(1) of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 provides:
‘Action by owner of copyright for infringement
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, infringements of copyright shall be actionable at the suit of
the owner of the copyright, and in any action for such an infringement all such relief by way of
damages, interdict, delivery of infringing copies or plates used or intended to be used for infringing
copies or otherwise shall be available to the plaintiff as is available in any corresponding
proceedings in respect of infringements of other proprietary rights.’

tempore more; VAT if VAT is payable on the amounts so ordered.’ The appellant
made certain payments pursuant to this order.

[4] The first respondent caused the second respondent, the Registrar of the
High Court, to issue a writ of execution on the balance outstanding. In the affidavit
in support of the writ, the first respondent averred that interest had to be calculated
from the date of service of the summons to the date of payment ‘capitalized
monthly’ and that interest on the balance after payment had to be ‘compounded
monthly’. The first respondent further claimed that VAT was payable and caused
the Registrar to include all these claims in the writ. The Deputy Sheriff executed
the writ on 10 July 2018 by attaching an amount of R7 965 470-56 in the
Municipality’s bank account. This caused the Municipality to launch an application
in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (the court a quo), for an order
reviewing and setting aside the writ in execution on the basis that the writ was not
in accordance with the order of the trial court. More particularly that the order did
not provide for interest to run from date of summons, or for compound interest or
VAT. The court a quo dismissed the application with costs. This appeal is against
that order.

[5] The high court (Botes AJ) considered that the case before it raised novel
issues. First, whether a ‘decision’ to issue a writ of execution was susceptible to
review in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).
Second, whether interest a tempore morae is ‘calculated from the date when the
liability arose, or on a date when the summons was served as provided for in the
Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975.’ Third whether value added tax is
payable on an amount in respect of an order or an award made by a Court pursuant
to the provisions of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978.

[6] Reliance on PAJA as a basis for review and for the setting aside of the writ
was correctly abandoned before us. It is difficult to discern what precisely the high
court determined in this regard. It appeared to keep the option of a PAJA-based

review open, concluding that the Registrar could not be accused of not applying
his mind, whilst at the same time accepting that the basic test is to determine
whether a writ is in accordance with the court order on which it is premised. It is
clear that a writ will be set aside where it does not accord with the order on which
it was purportedly issued, or the facts show that the debt has been satisfied, or the
order on which it was premised is itself set aside.3 The Registrar does not engage
in administrative action when he/she issues a writ. It can and ought to be
challenged on the principle of legality.

[7] The high court went into a lengthy discussion on whether interest ran from
the date of service of summons or from the time of the award. Botes AJ considered
that he should consider what a tempore morae meant in the ‘present context’.
Significantly, the court recognized that the court order did not ‘expressly state from
which specific date interest should be calculated’. Relying on the decision of this
court in Drake Flemmer & Orsmond Inc and Another v Gajjar NO4, Botes J
concluded that interest must be taken to run from the date of service of the
summons.

[8] In relation to compound interest the high court, relying on the decision of
this court in Davehill (Pty) v Community Development Bank5, concluded that Quill
suffered ‘further damage by virtue of the fact that [the Municipality] failed and
omitted to effect payment of royalties and the monthly licence fees since the date
upon which the combined summonses were served on the [Municipality’s]
predecessors.’ The high court went on to hold as follows:
‘Mora interest remains a specie of damages on which [Quill] remains entitled to recover
from the [Municipality]. I therefore find that [Quill] is entitled to claim compound interest
from the [Municipality], in accordance with and provided for in the calculation by [Quill]’.

3 Le Roux v Yskor Landgoed (EDMS) BPK en Andere 1984 (4) SA 252 (T) at 257 B-I.
4 Drake Flemmer & Orsmond Inc and Another v Gajjar NO [2017] ZASCA 169; 2018 (3) SA 353
(SCA).
5 Davehill (Pty) v Community Development Bank [1987] ZASCA 120; 1988 (1) SA 290 (A).

[9] The approach of the high court was flawed. First, it failed to have regard to
the relief sought by Quill before the trial court. Compound interest was not prayed
for.6 The trial court was specifically asked to determine the amount of a reasonable
royalty and licence fees. At paragraphs 49 and 50 the trial court set out a range of
factors taken into account to compensate Quill for the breach of its copyright.
Potterill J did not at any point in the judgment allude to the impact of delay on the
value of the monetary award and the need to compensate by way of a specific
more onerous form of interest, namely, compound interest. In any event,
compound interest is claimable in certain defined instances, which were not
asserted, considered or applicable in the present case.7 It was not for Botes AJ to
visit an issue that the high court was not called upon to determine and which, by
all indications in the judgment, it did not consider. Until the reasonable royalty,
based on all the factors alluded to by the trial court, and licence fees were
determined, there were no amounts on which interest could run. Interest would, in
the ordinary course, run from that date at the prescribed rate of interest.

[10] It is so that compensation in the form of a monthly licence fee from the time
of the service of the summons and until the Municipality ceased infringement of
Quill’s copyright was sought, but that was catered for when the trial court made its
award. Interest was not sought8 nor granted on the basis reflected in the writ.

[11] Botes AJ’s reliance on Drake Flemmer is unhelpful and was misplaced. The
principal issue in that case was how to account for the effects of inflation and trial
delay on the value of the claim.9 It involved a claim against attorneys for
professional negligence in the conduct of a client’s claim against the Road
Accident Fund where the claim was settled well below its true value.10 The
evidence adduced at the trial was directed at proving the amount he would have

6 This appears from the recital of the relief sought set out at para 1 of that judgment.
7 Euro Blitz 21 (Pty) Ltd Another v Secena Aircraft Investments CC [2015] ZASCA 21; JOL 32990
(SCA).
8 Para 1 of the trial court’s judgment and paras 12.1 to 12.3 of the relief sought by Quill.
9 Fn 4 para 1.
10 Fn 4 para 1.

been awarded had his claim against the Fund been properly conducted and to that
end his claim was actuarially valued at a particular point in time.11 The court in that
case noted that the claim was based on breach of contract. That essentially was
the basis on which the monetary claim was assessed. An award of contractual
damages is designed to put the aggrieved party in the position he would have
enjoyed had the mandate been properly performed.12 As can be seen it is thus a
very different case on the pleadings, the law, and the facts from the one in the
instant case.

[12] So too, was the high court’s reliance on Davehill. That case concerned an
expropriation under the provisions of the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975. In terms of
s 12(3) of that Act, the Community Development Board was obliged to pay interest
to the appellants from the date of taking occupation of the properties on any
outstanding portion payable in respect thereof.13 That was described by the court
as statutory interest. The pleadings in that case sought mora interest on the
amount of statutory interest outstanding. That was what the court in that case was
asked to adjudicate. It then proceeded to deal with the question of the rate of mora
interest in terms of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975. It was concerned
with the meaning of ‘special circumstances’ in s 1(1) of that Act, entitling a court to
depart from those provisions concerning the rate of interest. Special circumstances
relate to the facts of a particular case, which must be raised and adjudicated.14 In
that case special circumstances were found wanting. Once again, the pleadings,
the law and the facts of that case are far removed from that of the present.

[13] Lastly, in relation to the question of VAT, the high court was not called upon
to decide whether it was payable. That was a question for the trial court, which had
avoided that question and made an order, which, impermissibly, was vague and
unenforceable. The high court was not sitting as a court of appeal on the

11 Fn 4 para 3.
12 Fn 4 paras 40 and 41.
13 Davehill 295 E- I.
14 Davehill 301 D-F.

correctness of the conclusions reached by the trial court. Its duty was to look to
see if the writ was in accordance with the order and not to embark on answering
the novel questions it identified.

[14] The Municipality was thus undoubtedly correct in its stance on the time from
when mora interest started to run, namely, the time of the determination by the trial
court, of what was due to Quill in the form of reasonable royalty and licence fees.
So too, the Municipality was correct in relation to compound interest and VAT. Quill
sought more than its pound of flesh. The writ was not in accordance with the order
of the trial court and is liable to be set aside.

[15]  The following order is made:
The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel, where
so employed.
The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following
order:
1 The ‘writ of execution – incorporeal property’ under case numbers
36264/2013 and 36265/2013 in favour of the first respondent as execution
creditor, in terms of which the Sheriff was directed to attach and take into
execution the sum of R7 965 470.56 plus interest thereon at the rate of
15.5% calculated per annum and compounded monthly as from 11 July
2018 to date of payment, and other taxed costs and charges besides the
costs of the Sheriff against the “incorporeal property” of the applicant held
at First Rand Bank (Randfontein) cheque account number 672-387-440-45
is set aside.
2 The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.’

_________________
FE   MOKGOHLOA
JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES:

For appellant:

A F Arnoldi SC and J J Botha
Instructed by:

Smith Van der Watt Inc., Krugersdorp

Symington and De Kok Inc., Bloemfontein.

For respondent:

S D Wagener SC
Instructed by:

A L Maree Inc., Pretoria

Martins Attorneys, Bloemfontein.
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:

26 October 2021
Status:
Immediate
The following summary is for the benefit of the media in the reporting of this case and does not form part of
the judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal
Rand West City Local Municipality v Quill Associates (Pty) Ltd and Another (Case no 497/20) [2021] ZASCA
150 (26 October 2021)
Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) upheld an appeal from the Gauteng Division of the High Court,
Pretoria, with the first respondent being ordered to pay the costs of the application.

The appeal concerned the validity of a writ of execution issued at the instance of the first respondent, Quill
Associates (Pty) Ltd (Quill), purportedly in accordance with an order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court,
Pretoria (the trial court), dated 31 July 2015. The writ was issued against the appellant, the Rand West Local
Municipality (the Municipality).

During 1998 a predecessor of the appellant, being the former Randfontein and Westonaria municipalities, now
the Municipality, concluded an agreement with Quill for the use of a software program. It was entitled to the
necessary support and maintenance for a period of one year, renewable annually. Subsequent to the merger of the
municipalities, a new agreement had to be entered into in terms of which the appellant was not expected to pay
for the program again, but was to continue to pay licence fees, as it did in the previous years. In July 2011, one of
the former municipalities gave notice to terminate the 2004 agreement and informed the first respondent that it
would continue using the program on a month-to-month basis. Litigation was threatened as no new agreement
could be reached concerning the future use of the program. However, during this period the appellant’s
predecessors continued using the program without paying licence fees. This caused the first respondent to institute
action against the Municipality in the trial court, claiming interdictory and monetary relief, basing its claim on
copyright infringement. The trial court held that Quill’s copyright had indeed been infringed and granted the order
sought, together with interest on the said amounts at a rate of 15.5% per annum ad tempore more as well as value
added tax (VAT) if it was applicable. The Registrar of the High Court in Pretoria issued a writ of execution on
the outstanding balance and included interest and VAT in the calculations. The Municipality launched an
application for the review and setting aside of the writ of execution. The application was however dismissed.

The issue at the Supreme Court of Appeal pertained to the dismissed order and it had to decide whether a ‘decision’
to issue a writ of execution was susceptible to review in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3
of 2000 (PAJA), whether interest a tempore morae is ‘calculated from the date when the liability arose, or on a
date when the summons was served as provided for in the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975’ and whether
VAT is payable in respect of an order or an award made by a court pursuant to copyright infringements.

The approach of the high court was flawed as it failed to give cognisance to the relief sought by Quill before the
trial court. Compound interest was never prayed for. Instead, the trial court was specifically asked to determine
the amount of reasonable royalty and licence fees. The trial court set out a range of factors it had taken into account
to compensate Quill for the breach of its copyright. Until the reasonable royalty, based on all the factors alluded
to by the trial court, and licence fees were determined, there were no amounts on which interest could run. Interest
would, in the ordinary course, only run from that date at the prescribed rate of interest.

The Municipality was thus undoubtedly correct in its stance on the time from when mora interest started to run,
namely, from the time of the determination by the trial court, of what was due to Quill in the form of reasonable
royalty and licence fees. The Municipality was also correct in relation to interest and VAT. The writ was not in
accordance with the order of the trial court and was, therefore, liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal was
upheld with costs, the writ of execution set aside and the first respondent ordered to pay the costs of the application.
--------oOo--------