In a decision handed down by the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court in Blue Crane Route Municipality v Municipal Workers Retirement Fund and Another, the Court affirmed that the in duplum rule applies equally to statutory interest owed under the Pension Funds Act ("PFA"). The judgment reinforces the principle that the accumulation of interest, whether contractual or statutory, cannot exceed the principal debt owed.
This case is a significant contribution to the evolving jurisprudence on the scope of the in duplum rule and offers critical guidance to pension funds, employers, and other stakeholders navigating the enforcement of statutory interest obligations.
Background
Between 2007 and 2013, the Blue Crane Route Municipality ("the Municipality") failed to pay pension fund contributions to the Municipal Workers Retirement Fund ("the Fund"), in breach of section 13A of the PFA. A default judgment granted in November 2019 ordered the Municipality to pay R3,805,608.68 in unpaid contributions, together with prescribed interest under section 13A(7).
In January 2024, the Fund issued a writ of execution seeking interest of over R30 million (nearly eight times the capital sum). The Municipality paid the capital debt and tendered R8 450 751.19 in interest, asserting that the in duplum rule capped interest at the amount of the principal. The Fund opposed this, arguing that the rule did not apply to statutory interest arising under the PFA.
Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the in duplum rule, which limits the accumulation of interest on a debt to the amount of the outstanding capital, applies to interest prescribed by statute, specifically the PFA.
A further question arose as to whether the High Court was barred from revisiting or altering that decision, having previously granted a default judgment that made no mention of the in duplum rule.
The Court's Finding and Reasoning
The Scope of the In Duplum Rule
Writing for the full bench, Govindjee J undertook a comprehensive analysis of the in duplum rule's historical and legal development. The court confirmed that the rule, rooted in Roman-Dutch law, forms part of South African common law and is designed to protect debtors from unending and crushing interest liabilities.
Relying on existing judgements, the court rejected the Fund's argument that the rule applies only to contractual interest. It held that the rule applies to "any debt that bears interest," including debts arising from statutory obligations such as section 13A of the PFA. The fact that the interest is prescribed by statute does not exclude the application of the rule.
The court held that the in duplum rule comes into play once interest is payable on a debt. The court found no evidence that the PFA intended to override the in duplum rule. Relying on the principle that legislation does not alter the common law unless expressly or by necessary implication, the court held that section 13A(7) of the PFA, by specifying the rate and commencement of interest, did not implicitly exclude the rule.
Functus Officio Argument Rejected
The Fund also argued that because the court had previously granted a default judgment that made no reference to the in duplum rule, the court was barred from revisiting or altering that decision.
The court dismissed this argument, noting that the operation of the in duplum rule does not require express invocation by the court. It functions by operation of law. Furthermore, the original judgment did not purport to exclude the rule or grant interest in excess of capital. As such, the court was entitled to determine whether the amount claimed in the writ exceeded the legally recoverable limit.
Conclusion
The court's judgment in Blue Crane Route Municipality v Municipal Workers Retirement Fund reaffirms the robust reach of the in duplum rule, extending it to statutory interest and reinforcing its status as a cornerstone of debtor protection in South African law.
As pension funds and employers alike navigate complex enforcement environments, this case stands as a timely reminder: the common law still casts a long and protective shadow over even the most seemingly rigid statutory claims.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
