Talacar Holdings v City of Johannesburg

Perjury and Contempt of Court: Talacar Holdings (Pty) Ltd v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (44294/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 250

The matter arose from a billing dispute between Talacar Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“Talacar”) and the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (“the Municipality”) that had been ongoing since 2018. The dispute centred on incorrect water and electricity charges levied on the Talacar’s municipal account for the period November 2019 to February 2022.

The Municipality had previously terminated Talacar’s services (water, electricity, and refuse removal) despite the account being flagged for dispute resolution. This led to a series of court applications and the following orders:

Siwendu J’s order required the Municipality to finalise investigations and credit amounts due to Talacar within 7 days, or alternatively attend a meeting to debate the account within 15 days.
Opperman J ordered the Municipality to credit Talacar’s account with at least R140,000 within 3 calendar days, finalise investigations within 7 days, and attend a debatement meeting within 15 days to resolve incorrect charges.
Dlamini J’s order of 16 March 2022 declared the Municipality and Municipal Manager in wilful contempt of the previous orders and issued a rule nisi calling for charges of perjury against Mr Melusi Mlandu (“Mlandu”) and imprisonment/fine for the Municipal Manager. Mlandu was the deponent of the answering affidavit dated 11 March 2022 filed on behalf of the Municipality.

The application before the court in this case was the return of the rule nisi, seeking to make final the orders for perjury charges against Mlandu and imprisonment/fine for the Municipal Manager.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues:

Whether Mlandu committed perjury by stating under oath in his answering affidavit dated 11 March 2022 that the matter had been “settled” when it allegedly was not.
Whether the respondents were in deliberate and wilful contempt of the previous court orders by failing to comply with their requirements.

Talacar argued that the respondents remained in contempt. They had failed to credit the account with R140,000 within 3 days and had not provided water and electricity meter downloads within 7 days. They had also not identified the reasons for incorrect charges or determined the amounts overpaid by Talacar. No additional credits were allocated, no meeting was held to discuss the account, and the ongoing billing dispute remained unresolved. On the issue of perjury, Talacar alleged that Mlandu lied under oath by claiming the matter was “settled” when disputes were still outstanding.

In response, the respondents argued that they had credited R166,496.30 to Talacar’s account, which exceeded the required R140,000. They said that Mlandu’s use of the word “settled” in his affidavit referred only to the queried account credits, not all outstanding issues. They had asked for debatement meetings, but these were refused by Talacar. They also explained that account flagging required manual intervention. Given that the Municipality managed over a million accounts, mistakes were possible. Finally, they denied any deliberate intent to disobey the court orders.

Regarding the perjury, the court applied the legal test from section 9 of the Justice of Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act (“JPCOA”),¹ which requires proof of:

A false statement
Made knowing it to be false
In an affidavit before a competent person
With mens rea

The court, citing S v Van Staden,² referenced the principle that the test for ascertaining intention to lie under oath is to consider “the context of words used in the affirmation”. The court found that when considered in context, Mlandu’s use of the word “settled” referred to the specific account query and the fact that credits exceeding R140,000 had been applied. The court concluded there was no factual basis to conclude that Mlandu has perjured himself.

Applying the principles from Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd,³ the court reaffirmed that civil contempt requires proof that the breach was committed both deliberately and in bad faith. It emphasised that a deliberate disregard of a court order is not enough if the respondent genuinely believed they were entitled to act as they did. Good faith, in such cases, will negate contempt. Once the existence of the order, its service, and non-compliance are established, bad faith is presumed. The respondent must then rebut this presumption on a balance of probabilities.

The court was not satisfied that there was a deliberate intention to disobey its orders. It noted that Talacar had refused requests for debatement meetings. The Municipality also faced difficulties in retrieving original source documents. The scale of operations, involving over one million accounts, and the need for manual intervention suggested there was no mens rea. The court also took into account that credits exceeding the required amount had already been applied to Talacar’s account. With that, the court made the following order:

The existing rule nisi ordered by Dlamini J was discharged
The application to find Mlandu guilty of perjury was refused
Talacar was ordered to pay the costs

Authors Opinion

The court’s approach to interpreting Mlandu’s statement in its proper context was unsurprising, particularly given the well-established principle that words must be understood contextually rather than in isolation. The court also correctly applied the burden of proof requirements for both perjury and contempt, which serves as a recognition that serious allegations demand clear evidence of intent and bad faith.

However, allowing the Municipality to invoke the so-called “realities of municipal administration”, such as the volume of accounts and operational challenges, felt like a cop-out. Anyone who has interacted with a municipality knows how difficult it is to resolve even basic account queries. This decision fails to acknowledge that reality and consequently, in my view, fails to hold public bodies adequately accountable for non-compliance with court orders. The court’s willingness to accept operational difficulties as a defence risks setting a concerning precedent.

Although the court referred to Talacar’s refusal to attend debatement meetings, it did not sufficiently engage with whether that refusal was justified in light of the Municipality’s earlier failures to comply. The judgment also leaves the core billing dispute unresolved, potentially returning the parties to the same impasse that prompted the litigation in the first place. While Mlandu and the Municipality may have avoided the most serious consequences, the underlying issues that gave rise to years of litigation remain largely unaddressed. The decision may be legally sound, but it does little to advance the broader goal of municipal accountability and effective dispute resolution.

Everything else, I generally agree with. I appreciate that the decision reinforces the following:

Perjury requires clear evidence of intentional false statements, not merely disputed interpretations.
Contempt requires proof of deliberate and mala fide non-compliance.
Context is crucial in interpreting statements made under oath.

Finally, on the issue of costs, the order against Talacar, though consistent with the principle that costs follow the result, seems unduly harsh. This is especially considering Talacar was forced to bring multiple court applications because the Municipality initially failed to comply with its own processes.

You can read the full Talacar Holdings v City Of Johannesburg judgement here.

Written by Theo Tembo