This comment is from a valuation and rates policy perspective, with reference to the City of Tshwane’s 2024/25 Rates Policy, the Settlement Order granted on 4 August 2026 in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria (case numbers 126223/2025 and 54083/2026), and the Kleinfontein Share Block Media Statement dated 7 August 2026.
Order Provisions
- Kleinfontein must submit a complete land development application by 31 August 2026 for the proposed township of Kleinfontein Extension 1.
- The application will be treated as a new application and will follow the standard SPLUMA/by-law process, including full public participation.
- Pending the outcome, no further construction/development may take place (except for required infrastructure), and no new share blocks may be issued.
- The order does not oblige the Municipality to approve non-compliant or applications lacking merit.
- The Municipality’s decision to levy rates for illegal/unauthorised use from 1 September 2024 is reviewed and set aside.
- Accounts must be adjusted from 1 September 2024 to reflect the actual current use per portion — residential, agricultural, or business/commercial, including proportional allocations across use types on various portions.
- The adjustment is to be made on the basis of the applicable valuation roll; outstanding amounts are payable within 60 days from the order (para. 16).
- Existing account disputes lodged since 1 September 2024 are deemed to have been resolved or withdrawn (para. 17).
The Categorisation of Non-permitted Uses & Fairness
The Rates Policy defines “non-permitted use” as any use that is inconsistent with, or contrary to, the permitted use of the property, in which case — “without approving the unauthorised use” — the property is valued as if it were used solely for that unauthorised purpose.
The Policy is prescriptive and contains no express discretion allowing the Municipality to suspend or abandon this categorisation due to a pending application, an undertaking to formalise the use, or ongoing litigation. On the facts contained in the order itself, the underlying unauthorised use has not been resolved. The trigger mechanism for the unauthorised use category therefore appears, factually, to remain present.
What the order does not do, however, is explain on what basis the unauthorised use category is set aside.
The Rates Policy is expressly based on the principle of fairness — “all categories of property and categories of owners must be treated equitable in relation to each other”.
The concern is that this Settlement Order ostensibly ignores this principle:
- Other ratepayers whose properties are categorised as non-permitted use remain liable for the rates until the use is discontinued or until the use is legalised.
- Kleinfontein obtains relief from the rate, and a re-categorisation before the zoning has been resolved — by virtue of a negotiated settlement of litigation rather than through the Policy’s own criteria.
What Would Justify the Setting Aside — A Gap in the Available Record
The Settlement Order records the outcome (the rates decision is “reviewed and set aside”) but not the grounds. There could be two possible scenarios:
- Scenario A — procedural defect specific to Kleinfontein: If the original decision to change the category was procedurally defective in Kleinfontein’s case, then the setting aside remedies an unlawful administrative act specific to this ratepayer. This would not, in itself, create a claim for other owners unless their circumstances demonstrate the same defect.
- Scenario B — negotiated settlement: If the setting aside instead reflects a negotiated litigation outcome rather than a finding of unlawfulness, the fairness issue is more pronounced, as the relief would then follow the willingness/ability to litigate rather than a Policy-based entitlement.
Summary
The material open question is one of fairness and consistency: the Rates Policy’s definition of non-permitted use is not indicated to be discretionary, the factual trigger mechanism for that category (non-compliant use) has not been resolved by this order, and there is apparently no equivalent relief mechanism for other ratepayers in the same position. Whether this is defensible depends on the legal basis for the setting aside, which is not disclosed in the order or the media statement.
The settlement could potentially be used as a precedent by owners of other properties categorised as unauthorised use to declare a dispute with the City of Tshwane.
For further information please do read the article by Antoinette Slabbert on MoneyWeb here.