🚀 go-pugleaf

Is there an accepted order of 'trumping' of these principles,
related to this matter?

As a Swiss citizen [see passport exhibit] I have for several decades
been covered by the Soliswiss 'insurance for Swiss living abroad,
who for political reasons, not of their own cause, lose their lively-
hood, due to political reasons'. This is intended to cover events 
like the [the Iranian revolution ?] and Zimbabawian white-farm
looting. [See Soliswiss certificate exhibit.]

Accordingly, my pending need to approach Soliswiss for a claim
against the loss of my life's savings and pension, and  income 
rental, due to the, now well publicised and thus commonly 
recognised South African municipal billing crisis, will need to
expose incompetence and injustice ALSO of the SA Courts.
Which would not be in the national interest.

From 1968, when I bought the property, until the 90's, when 
it had become my rental income, I had no problems with
any municipal accounts, as indeed was the normal case, then.

In the 90's
when I challenged the municipal authorities about their repeated
false billing, they contrived a default judgment and confiscated my
property.  The record shows [below in more detail] that the SA
judicial system is equally incompetent [and perhaps corrupt] as the
already amply exposed municipal billing system is.

At the magistrate application to have the default judgment rescinded
it was found that I had no defence since 
<several months AFTER the default judgment, the withheld amount 
owing had accumulated to exceed the claim>.
I.e. that events AFTER the default judgment justified such judgment.
I.e. that cause comes after effect.
I.e. that time moves backwards.

At the [pro se] appeal hearing the judges acknowledged the absurd
reasoning of the magistrate by discarding the magistrate's written
reasons and introducing their OWN [also wrong] NEW reason:
thereby denying me the constitutional, common law and existing
statutory right to have the arguments know before the hearing, in
order to prepare a rebuttal.

From my spreadsheet that I had delivered to the municipal
authorities [not knowing that they had already contrived a default 
judgment], the appeal judges were able to see that at the summons
date [of which I had been unaware] the amount admitted as owing
and withheld had accumulated to exceed the claim/summons.

This is NOT a reason to assert that I had no defence against the claim
because:
1. the claim was for services up to a CERTAIN date, as specified by the 
summons. Debts incurred after the claim belonged to a different matter.
2. Although I didn't know at the time: the ordinance which requires the
municipal authorities to send an arrears warning, mandates that the 
amount litigated is FIXED by such warning; and all following accounts,
correctly showed, "balance handed over" as FIXED. Hence correctly
confirming the fixed amount litigated.  Hence making any comparison
of amounts owed at later dates irrelevant to the application for 
setting-aside the default judgment.
3. If the sheriff fell-off-his-bicycle and was delayed for some days
in serving the summons, the resulting new billing period could well
make the admitted withheld amount exceed the [DATE FIXED] claim.
So the appeal judges decision would depend on the dog that chased
the sheriffs bicycle. That's not how, even SA law is intended to work.
4. By considering a simplified model where the correct billing is $10
per month and the false billing is $11 per month, it is seen that at
all times from when payment is with-held, the false bill exceeds
[increasingly] the amount withheld, and that it is absurd to claim
that since the admission of owing $30 after 3 months exceeds the
summons based on the $22, 2-month false claim, the debtor has no
defence, and that there is nothing to decide. I.e that the municipality
has made no mistake. 

After this stage the matter becomes really complex, and interesting.

PS. the spreadsheet supplied to TLC, accompanied bank statements showing
the escrow account of the withheld debt. So how does that effect the 
rule  to [not execute immovables when cash is clearly available]?

== Thanks for any feedback.