Legal showdown: Cape Town ratepayers back SAPOA in fight against unlawful municipal charges
Image: File Picture
The Cape Town Collective Ratepayers' Association (CTCRA) has welcomed a court case brought by the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) against the City of Cape Town over how it calculates certain charges on municipal bills.
SAPOA has taken the City to the Western Cape High Court, arguing that linking fixed water and sewage charges to property value is unlawful - a view shared by the CTCRA, a newly forming body made up of 57 civic and ratepayer associations across Cape Town.
Its interim chair is Noordhoek Ratepayers' Association chairperson Bas Zuidberg.
In response to SAPOA's legal challenge, Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis said in a statement that the association was acting to protect the profits of the country's wealthiest property owners at the expense of ordinary Capetonians.
'SAPOA represents the largest and wealthiest commercial property owners – primarily shopping mall owners – who have long benefited from the success of Cape Town,' said Hill-Lewis.
'Yet now they argue that they should contribute the same to infrastructure costs as low-income households, which would be patently unfair.'
He said SAPOA's attempt to halt the City's 2025/26 budget amounted to a defence of regressive taxation.
'The effect would be for ordinary families to effectively subsidise the richest property owners.'
The City replaced the former "pipe levy", which had charged households equally based on pipe size, with a more equitable system linking fixed charges to property value.
'It's simply unsustainable for a R50 million home and a R500 000 home to make the same fixed contribution,' Hill-Lewis said.
In a statement, the CTCRA said the City's approach to charging residents contravenes national legislation governing municipal revenue and services.
The cleaning charge, for instance, was cited as an example of a general cost, comparable to road repairs or emergency services, that should be covered by property rates and not billed as a separate fee tied to property value.
The CTCRA warned that if the issue is left unchallenged, other municipalities may adopt similar practices.
'This isn't just about Cape Town. It's about fairness and following the Constitution,' the association said.
The group confirmed that the billing issue affects both business and residential property owners. It is considering applying to the court as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) to support SAPOA's legal arguments.
The association also criticised Hill-Lewis for what it described as a deflection from the legal substance of the case.
The mayor hasn't addressed the actual legal points raised. Instead, he's tried to frame the issue as one group of residents versus another,' said Zuidberg.
They noted that many of those who objected to the City's latest budget were ordinary middle-class residents, not wealthy property owners.
'We're talking about retired people, single parents and families living month-to-month. Just because they own homes doesn't mean they can afford hundreds of rands more each month."
The CTCRA argued that equating property value with affordability is misleading and that the City should not assume the right to determine who can or can't afford to pay more.
In response to the City's claim that its budget includes mitigation measures to protect vulnerable households, the association said this was irrelevant if the charges themselves are unlawful.
It also rejected the City's defence of its policies as a matter of tax fairness.
'Service charges aren't taxes. They're fees for services delivered. They're not meant to be progressive or regressive,' said Zuidberg.
CTCRA said it and other civic groups had suggested alternatives, such as boosting municipal efficiency or introducing a tourist overnight tax, but these proposals were ignored.
'This court case is about the law - and the City must follow it,' the association said.
Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.
Cape Argus
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
6 hours ago
- The South African
HOW did Gayton's son raise R50m to buy soccer club?
Gayton McKenzie's son Calvin Le John has revealed how he raised R50 million to purchase soccer club Siwelele FC, previous SuperSport United last month. The businessman is the firstborn of the Minister of Sport, Art and Culture who has taken over the family businesses. Le John – who uses his mother's maiden name – is hoping his new club fills the void left behind by Bloemfontein Celtics, which later became Royal AM. Speaking in his first interview, Calvin Le John answered burning questions about acquiring the 'new' PSL club, Siwelele FC. One of them was how he managed to raise R50 million to buy the club. Another was how and when the business transaction occurred. Gayton McKenzie's son revealed that the sale took place via an auction, and he bid R50 million for the club, which was ultimately accepted. 'I don't have 50 million lying around. I sold some properties to fund the project', Le He added that he sold shares to the family's diamond mine to a consortium to the sum of a whopping R90 million. Calvin Le John also shot down rumours the money was raised through corrupt tenders or via Gayton McKenzie's right-hand man, Kenny Kunene. He continued: 'I saw a rumour that I got a tender for R70 million, and that's a blatant lie.' 'I don't have any friends, associates, or family members who are doing any work in the city or the department of sports, for that matter. I don't do tenders. I tried, but seeing people being arrested is scary. 'I'm in different businesses, but I don't deal with the state'.. He added: 'If anybody has information about me receiving R70 million, let them bring it out. I have nothing to hide'. Le John added that SuperSport United required him to 'prove' how he acquired the funds to purchase the club. On Saturday, 9 August – which marks Women's Day in South Africa – Siwelele will make their debut in the league with a Betway Premiership match against Golden Arrows. The club will play in their home turf in Bloemfontein at the Dr Petrus Molemela Stadium in Mangaung. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
uMkhanyakude Municipality disputes Cogta's court ruling interpretation
KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Cogta Thulasizwe Buthelezi Image: Supplied The uMkhanyakude District Municipality has accused KwaZulu-Natal Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) MEC Reverend Thulasizwe Buthelezi of misleading the public about a recent Pietermaritzburg High Court ruling. The municipality asserts that the judgement did not confirm the provincial intervention into the municipality. This follows a media statement issued by MEC Buthelezi on Saturday, stating that the court had upheld the decision to place the municipality under administration in terms of Section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution. In a statement issued the following day, the municipality said, 'The court has reserved its judgment on the matter regarding MEC Thulasizwe Buthelezi's decision to place uMkhanyakude District Municipality under administration, meaning that no final decision has been made.' MEC Buthelezi welcomed the ruling, describing it as a victory for the rule of law. 'This judgment reaffirms the authority of Mr Bamba Ndwandwe as the Administrator,' he said. He further urged the Mayor to ensure the gates of the municipality were opened so that the Administrator could assume his duties and restore normal operations. However, uMkhanyakude officials dismissed this interpretation, stating that the court's order dealt specifically with an application by the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) to compel the payment of salaries. 'That matter talks to employees' salaries only, not the intervention,' said Municipal Speaker Solomon Mkhombo. According to the municipality, the court instructed the Municipal Manager, together with Cogta to process the July salaries but made no final ruling on the legality of the provincial government's intervention. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Mkhombo stated that the municipality's legal team argued the intervention was politically motivated and constitutionally flawed. 'Cogta is using Section 139(1)(b)... for political reasons, known by MEC Buthelezi,' he said, adding that the department's legal representative admitted in court that not all due processes were followed before initiating the intervention. The municipality also criticised the freezing of its bank account by Cogta and its financial institution, calling it 'illegal' and praising the court for siding with employees in ensuring payment of salaries. 'The High Court reserved its judgment and Mr. Bamba Ndwandwe, the imposed administrator, is not the Administrator; hence the matter is still in court,' said Mkhombo. THE MERCURY
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Apex Court's surprise ruling extends Makate's Please Call Me Battle
Nqolokazi Nomvalo ss Head of Legal: Operations at Life Healthcare Group. Image: Supplied FOR nearly two decades, South Africans have watched the legal saga between Vodacom and its former employee, Nkosana Makate, unfold like a courtroom drama with no final act. The latest twist, a unanimous Constitutional Court judgment handed down on Thursday, has reignited public interest and legal debate. In a development that stunned many legal observers and defied predictions of finality, the apex court has remitted the case back to the Supreme Court of Appeal. It will now be reconsidered by a freshly constituted bench. This move injects fresh uncertainty into a saga long believed to be approaching its conclusion. But what does this mean, and why does it matter? It is important to clarify that Makate's original idea was a simple yet powerful proposition: a mobile user with no airtime should be able to 'buzz' another user, prompting them to call back. Vodacom, recognising the creativity, developed the concept into the now-famous "Please Call Me" free message. This version allowed for costless transmission and universal utility. That difference matters, especially when assessing the various compensation models, which have ranged from employee-equivalent remuneration to revenue-sharing frameworks. The Supreme Court of Appeal had previously affirmed the Gauteng High Court's decision in Makate's favour and went further, controversially substituting its own compensation formula and awarding Makate 5 to 7.5 percent of Please Call Me revenue. Vodacom challenged this ruling, arguing that the SCA overstepped its bounds as an appellate court, particularly because Makate had not lodged a cross-appeal. The Constitutional Court, being the highest court in the land, granted Vodacom leave to appeal and upheld its challenge. Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, writing for a unanimous bench in what is widely regarded as his swan judgment before retirement, agreed. The Constitutional Court held that the SCA had impermissibly ventured into terrain that required a cross-appeal and had disregarded the true issues before it. This resulted in a failure of justice, specifically a breach of Vodacom's right to a fair public hearing as guaranteed under section 34 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court has directed that the case return to the SCA, where a different panel of judges will now consider it afresh. It marks a rare judicial reset in a case that has already passed through every major court in the country. The legal significance of this moment cannot be overstated. The Constitutional Court has reinforced the boundaries of appellate authority and revived critical scrutiny around the quantum of fair compensation. The referral order compels the SCA to take a fresh look, with a new bench and a sharper lens, at the determination originally made by Vodacom's CEO. That figure was R47 million, reached after extensive modelling and expert input. It followed a failed negotiation between Makate, who proposed R20.2 billion, and Vodacom, which offered R10 million. Makate has challenged the CEO's determination as woefully low, especially in light of the widespread success of the Please Call Me service. Beyond the courtroom, this case has come to represent the struggle for equitable recognition of intellectual contributions, especially by employees in corporate ecosystems. The 'Please Call Me' litigation has gripped the public imagination. It's not just because of the staggering figures involved. It speaks to something profoundly South African: the courage to claim one's voice and the power of innovation born in unlikely places. As the legal process restarts again, one hopes that the eventual outcome will honour not just the merits of law but the deeper values it serves—justice, fairness, and transformative equity. That would be a fitting tribute to Justice Madlanga's legacy of principled clarity and constitutional fidelity. (Nomvalo is Head of Legal: Operations at Life Healthcare Group. She began her career in corporate litigation and commercial law at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc. Her expertise also encompasses traditional arts, heritage preservation, transformation, and the promotion of women's and children's rights. Her views don't necessarily reflect those of the Sunday Tribune or Independent Media) SUNDAY TRIBUNE
