Ekurhuleni metro has withdrawn a case in which it accused the sheriff’s office of acting “unlawfully” in attaching several items, including an ambulance and department vehicles used to restore electricity during blackouts, in a long-running debt collection row.
The municipality initiated legal action against the sheriff’s office head, Anton Greyling, accusing him of acting in bad faith by taking some key service delivery vehicles.
In court papers, Greyling disputed the accusations. The sheriff was acting on court orders instructing the municipality to pay litigants.
The matter was scheduled to be heard on Tuesday at the high court in Johannesburg, however, judge Dephny Mahosi informed the court the matter had been withdrawn by the parties.
This marks an end to a two-year legal battle in which the metro wanted Greyling to be held personally liable.
In the metro’s application, the divisional head in specialised law, Selven Frank, said the sheriff attached “an ambulance and many of the vehicles in the energy department’s fleet”.
He said this made it “impossible” for the municipality to restore electricity where there have been faults and outages in the region resulting in residents suffering poor service delivery.
“He [the sheriff] has no difficulty in blockading access and egress points to the applicants [metro] to carry out what is an illegal attachment and removal,” Frank said.
The municipality did not dispute it was in arrears.
“The judgment creditors have caused writs of execution to be issued for the satisfaction of the judgment debt owed by the applicant [metro],” the court papers read.
The metro argued the sheriff, however, acted “outside the strict and express wording of the rules governing him”.
It said the sheriff did not consult the metro about whether it could pay the money, but instead started searching for property to attach.
Greyling, in his answering affidavit, described the court challenge as a “shameful waste of public funds”.
He said the municipality was a “habitual judgment debtor that has a history of repeatedly failing to satisfy judgment debts”.
Greyling denied the sheriff’s office attached an ambulance.
“The respondent [sheriff] has never attached an ambulance or a cherry picker [aerial work platform] belonging to the applicant [metro]. The respondent is fully aware that such vehicles are used for essential services.”
He denied he acted in bad faith and did not follow correct legal requirements in attaching the metro’s property.
“I deny that the applicant was not afforded the opportunity to identify sufficient movable and disposable goods to satisfy the writ [court order]. The applicant habitually would identify essential equipment such as laptops that, if removed, would cripple the municipality.”
The sheriff accused the municipality of hiding its property and using security officials to “intimidate” staff from doing their jobs. The metro also accused the sheriff’s office of overcharging it in administration fees.
After much bickering between the two parties they have found mutual ground this year.
This is the second removal of the case from the court roll; the first part of the application was removed in May 2023.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.