Petroleum Slate levy retention proposed; PIE standing expanded for sole directors

Government Notice 7830 proposes inserting a new paragraph 7A into the Slate Levy procedures under the Petroleum Products Act 120 of 1977. The amendment would authorise petroleum undertakings (Slate participants) to temporarily retain all or a portion of Slate Levy collections otherwise payable to the Central Energy Fund where the cumulative negative Slate balance exceeds a departmentally-determined reimbursement threshold. Retained collections are deemed partial reimbursement of verified cumulative under-recovery balances. The retention arrangement ceases once an undertaking's verified balance falls below R500 million or on an earlier date set by the Minister. All existing reporting, reconciliation and audit obligations remain in force during any retention period. Stakeholders have 30 days from publication to submit written comments.

The first respondent, Mr Mookrey, was the sole director and shareholder of a company that owned residential property. He instituted PIE eviction proceedings in his own name against unlawful occupiers without joining the owner company as a party. The magistrate granted the eviction order. The appellant challenged Mr Mookrey's locus standi on appeal, arguing that only the registered owner company could bring the proceedings.

The court held: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Mr Mookrey qualified as a 'person in charge' under s 4(1) of PIE because he had legal authority to grant or refuse permission to enter or reside on the property. Section 4(1) of PIE, read with section 57(2) of the Companies Act, created a limited exception permitting the sole director to proceed without citing the company. While the owner company ought preferably to have been joined, its non-joinder was not fatal to the proceedings.

Legal impact: This judgment develops the law on a novel question on which there was no prior direct authority. It establishes that sole directors/shareholders exercising effective control over company-owned property have independent standing under PIE as 'person in charge', without needing to join the owner company. However, the court emphasised that the preferable and legally safer course remains to cite both the company as owner and the sole director as person in charge. Practitioners advising property-holding companies — particularly single-director entities — now have clear guidance on structuring PIE eviction proceedings.