The content on this page is not written by Rates Watch, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Rates Watch.
In separate key judgments handed down last month, both the North and South Gauteng High Courts ruled against the imposition of unlawful and irrational municipal cleaning levies implemented by Tshwane and Johannesburg – much to the relief of property owners.
Tshwane’s cleansing levy
In Tshwane, nearly 250 000 residents, many of whom have never received refuse collection from the city, were being billed R194 per month under a so-called ‘cleansing levy’ intended to fund waste management services. Afriforum – acting in the public interest – instituted urgent legal proceedings to challenge the imposition of the levy on the basis that it is unlawful and irrational. Further, the body contended that the levy penalised residents for making lawful, alternative waste arrangements due to Tshwane’s failure to provide effective municipal services, and duplicated fees already covered by existing tariffs and other charges.
Upon assessment, the North Gauteng High Court agreed. It declared the levy to be unlawful, invalid, and of no force and effect. Accordingly, the court ordered the city to cease billing immediately, credit affected accounts, and pay Afriforum’s legal costs. Critically, it rejected the City’s contention that the levy was designed to cover ‘system-wide’ waste expenditure. Instead, it characterised the levy’s imposition as a veiled attempt to plug a R540 million budget deficit.
Johannesburg’s non-sectional title refuse tariff
In a similar ruling, the South Gauteng High Court recently declared a non-sectional title refuse tariff, which was imposed from 2018 to 2022, ultra vires and invalid. In this case, the City of Johannesburg had unilaterally reclassified multi-unit residential buildings – already paying refuse fees – into a higher tariff bracket, without any legal basis under its By-laws or the Municipal Systems Act. Taking the matter to court, various major housing providers successfully argued that no valid policy or local law justified the creation of a ‘non-sectional title’ category. Emphasising that municipalities may only act within the powers lawfully granted to them, the court found no rational basis for charging property owners more based solely on a property classification undefined in law.
Cape Town’s contested tariffs
Since we last reported on Cape Town’s new – and hotly contested – municipal tariffs, SAPOA has instituted urgent legal proceedings in the Western Cape High Court to set aside the City’s cleaning levy and fixed charges for water and sanitation, which form part of its 2025/26 municipal budget. According to SAPOA, the tariffs violate various laws, including the Property Rates Act, related legal frameworks, and the Constitution.
Characterising these three sets of tariffs as ‘unlawful’, SAPOA contends that the City is penalising property owners by unlawfully tying the charges to property value. In particular, the tariffs will most negatively impact those who’ve invested in sustainable solutions, such as solar panelling or rainwater harvesting. Notably, the court bid is supported by various other property stakeholders and owners alike.
With the challenge to Cape Town’s municipal tariffs, the Gauteng rulings send a strong message to municipalities across South Africa: Budget shortfalls don’t justify the imposition of unlawful levies and legally compliant tariff-setting is not negotiable.
Click here to read the article on the STBB website written by Samantha Smith.