Cleansing levy: Court rules against the charge
The judgment, made on July 31, follows an urgent court application launched by civil organisation AfriForum.
AfriForum argued that the metro failed to follow due process when introducing the R194.37 monthly levy, including a failure to consider public input and non-compliance with legal requirements.
During court proceedings, the civil organisation asked the court not only to scrap the levy but to prohibit the metro from publishing the by-law supporting it, and to reverse all billing to date.
The court ruled in AfriForum's favour, stating that the metro's actions fell short of its legal obligations and that any attempt to recover funds through the levy must cease immediately.
It ruled that any residents or businesses already billed must be credited in the next billing cycle.
'This decision followed a special motion hearing held on July 24, allocated by the Acting Judge President, following an urgent request for judicial case management,' the ruling read.
AfriForum contended that the cleansing levy, imposed as of July 1 for the 2025/26 financial year, was unlawful, irrational, and effectively amounted to an illegal tax.
It argued that many affected residents and businesses do not receive municipal waste collection services and have, for years, had to arrange and pay for private disposal methods.
'In its defence, the metro relied on a 2016 Waste Management By-law and Section 75A of the Municipal Systems Act, but the court found this argument lacking in substance,' the court ruling stated.
'The by-law was never promulgated and, therefore, had no legal force.'
AfriForum further argued that the metro failed to publish or follow the required steps when determining the levy, failed to consider submissions from the public, and could not identify the residents or businesses that receive the services the levy was intended to fund.
The metro's blanket justification that 'many ratepayers' benefit was dismissed by the court as 'vague and unsupported'.
ALSO READ: Complex residents cry foul over new waste levy charges
Do you have more information about the story?
Please send us an email to [email protected] or phone us on 083 625 4114.
For free breaking and community news, visit Rekord's websites: Rekord East
For more news and interesting articles, like Rekord on Facebook, follow us on Twitter or Instagram or TikTok.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
10 hours ago
- The Citizen
City breaks silence after pressure over Bryanston land dispute
After a week of mounting pressure, behind-the-scenes questions, and concern, the Johannesburg Property Company (JPC) has finally engaged with stakeholders in the Bryanston Sports Club land controversy. Ward 102 councillor Lucinda Harman confirmed that a meeting was held on August 5 between herself, a JPC representative, and the manager of the Bryanston Sports Club, Pat Carolin. The meeting, while cordial and constructive, did result in informal commitments or resolutions. Read more: Outcry over Bryanston Sports Club sale 'There was a willingness to talk, which we welcome. But what we need now is action, not just conversation. The public deserves a lawful, transparent process, and that hasn't yet happened,' said Harman. Until now, the JPC had remained silent despite repeated attempts by the Sandton Chronicle to seek clarity on the future of the land and whether due process had been followed in its proposed lease or disposal. On August 6, one day after the meeting, the JPC finally acknowledged receipt of the inquiry sent by this publication. In a brief email, the Client Servicing Unit stated, 'Kindly note that your matter is receiving attention and it has been forwarded to the relevant department for response. We will revert to you in due course.' No substantive reply or timeline for a full response was provided. We will update once we receive their statement. Follow us on our Whatsapp channel, Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok for the latest updates and inspiration!
Mail & Guardian
13 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Trump's tariffs are illegal under international trade law
US President Donald Trump. Photo: Supplied The Trump administration's trade tariffs are illegal and fall outside the legal framework of international trade law. South Africa should call out the US government for violating basic principles of international law South Africa is subject to a 30% US tariff rate, announced during the so-called liberation day tariffs declaration on 2 April, and will take effect from 1 August. The South African economy is likely to be significantly affected by these tariffs, particularly the agricultural sector and vehicle industries. The specific regions that will be affected are the Eastern Cape vehicle corridor and citrus fruit small towns in the Western cape. The tariffs are eroding the rule-based international trade order by unilaterally imposing tariffs to balance American trade deficit with its trading partners. The United States, being one of the chief architects of the international trade system is now questioning the benefits of the rule based global trade order. The first assault of the global trade order was in 2017, when the US, under Trump, started blocking all new appointments to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) appellate body as the terms of its Judges were expiring. Trump started his trade war with China in early 2018, when he started setting tariffs and other trade barriers against China. Breach of the WTO rules Trade within the auspices of the WTO is rules-based and has been a source of international economic stability and success in many of the world's economies. Established through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1948 and subsequently the WTO in 1994, the rules-based international trade law has been founded on what is known as diffuse reciprocity. Diffuse reciprocity essentially negates formal numerical equality in tariffs within the context of the global trade system. This is because reciprocal tariffs are a fundamental rejection of the WTO rules. Throughout the years, the international trade system has been based on the principle of non-discrimination amongst the member countries of the WTO. Non-discrimination principle promotes universal equal treatment between the WTO member countries. This trade without discrimination is known as the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) Treatment. The MFN is the first article of the GATT agreement, which regulates trade in goods. It requires a nation providing a trade concession to one trading partner to extend the same treatment to all. Therefore, countries cannot discriminate between their trading partners. For example, if country A offers a lower custom duty rate to country B, it has to extend the same treatment to others. Similarly, if a country imposes additional restrictions on the WTO member nation, it must do the same to all the other trading partners. A Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), Free Trade Agreements and Customs Union are some carve outs and exceptions to the MFN principle. For instance, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) is an exception to the MFN rule under the WTO legal Framework. But it should be noted that although South Africa's membership in Agoa gives preferential access to the US market, economists have said that only 20% of our exports constitute the Agoa export. Therefore, most of the country's exports are not under the Agoa preferential access. Beginning on 1 August 2025, the US will continue to violate Article I of the GATT by unilaterally imposing 30% reciprocal tariffs on the South African government. For example, while the Indian exporters will now face 20% US tariffs, South Africa's exporters will face 30% tariffs on the same products. The US is also in breach of its commitment under Article II of the WTO's GATT agreement, which deals primarily with the schedule of concessions. This provision details the tariffs commitments the WTO member states have made to other countries. It mandates the WTO member countries to provide treatment not less favourable than the one provided under its schedule of concessions, including adhering to bound tariffs that a country has committed itself to. By unilaterally imposing reciprocal tariffs that are not agreed to by other member states of the WTO, the US violates its legal commitment that it has made under Article II of the WTO's GATT agreement. While the US is permitted under Article XX VIII of the GATT to unilaterally modify its tariff commitment under international trade law, this approach requires a negotiated compensation with the affected member states. The Trump administration has not adopted this approach. Furthermore, the reciprocal actions also undermine the WTO law principle of special and differential treatment accorded to least developed and developing countries, to which South Africa is one of them. The rationale behind the special and differential treatment principle is to allow least developed countries and developing countries to provide less than full reciprocity in their tariff obligations to developed countries. Criticism of the US reciprocal tariffs Many countries have criticised the US reciprocal tariffs for violating basic principles of international trade. China has openly criticised the US government saying that the US move disregards the balance of interest reached in multilateral trade negotiations over the years and the fact that it has long benefited greatly from international trade. China has instituted a WTO case against the US for breaching of its WTO obligations. The second critic of Trump is the Singaporean government. The country's prime minister recently remarked that the US appears to be withdrawing from the global leadership to a less predictable international trade system and the messier world. He said the era of rule- based globalisation and free trade is over. He has labelled the US new tariff regime as a repudiation of the MFN principle. Likewise, the Canadian government has challenged the legality of the US tariffs. It has retaliated to the US tariffs by imposing 25% tariffs on $30 billion of US imports and has plans to expand to $155 billion after consultation. In addition to this, Canada has filed a legal claim against the US by requesting WTO dispute consultations with the US concerning the imposition by the US of import duties on certain steel and aluminium products from Canada. The initiation of this dispute has been circulated to all the WTO member countries. The actions by these countries are justified. The US government should be held accountable for its erosion of international trade rules. The South African government has not condemned the Trump administration for its violation of international law; it has instead insisted on one-sided attempts to negotiate trade deals with the US government. South Africa's position therefore does not explicitly express its discontent with the US illegal tariffs, but it is hoping that its negotiation will yield some trade deals with the US. One wonders if the results of that trade deal itself will be compliant with the WTO trade rules, but this will be seen once the US tariffs decision on South Africa has taken effect. The South African strategy On 7 July, the South African president issued a statement attempting to push back on Trump's imposition of 30% tariffs, saying that they are an inaccurate view of US-South Africa's trade relations. He has argued that these tariffs are not an accurate representation of available trade data. But this is not enough. South Africa appears to be hesitant to publicly call out the illegal tariffs of the US government, possibly because such public condemnation of Trump tariffs would not be in the interests of South Africa. According to the joint statement by the ministers of international relations and trade, industry and competition, South Africa is seeking to secure favourable quota agreements and additional exemptions by ensuring that its industries still maintain access to the US market including sectoral cooperation. The joint statement has reiterated that the country is committed to the mutual beneficial trade relationship between the US and South Africa. Instead of calling the tariffs illegal and against international trade law, the joint statement expresses concerns over shared prosperity between the two nations and it acknowledges these tariffs as constituting barriers to trade. Other countries have continued to negotiate with the US government on this tariff issue while taking it to the WTO dispute settlement system. If South Africa were to take a similar approach, it would continue to negotiate with the US government while reminding it of its commitment to the global trade rules. Perhaps the South African government might argue that this will not yield any results, given that the WTO settlement body is dysfunctional. The other impediment is that the appellate body of the WTO is not currently functional, because the US has blocked the appointment and reappointment of its judges. But China and Canada have continued to file legal claims against the US government. They understand the use of the global trade rules to enforce their claims against the violator of the trade system. As it did with the International Court of Justice case against Israel, history should remember South Africa as a country that fought for the stability of the multilateral trade system, a fair system of international trade and revitalisation of the WTO dispute settlement system. Mmiselo Freedom Qumba is a lecturer at the University of Pretoria and an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa.
Eyewitness News
19 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
New Tshwane city cleansing levy set aside by Gauteng High Court
JOHANNESBURG - The Tshwane municipality's newly introduced city cleansing levy has been set aside by the Gauteng High Court, following a challenge by lobby group AfriForum. In May, Tshwane passed its budget for the current financial year, which included a new R194 a month tariff for customers using private waste collection. In its papers, AfriForum said the capital was unfairly taxing residents who established their own means to dispose of their waste because of the municipality's inefficiencies. In a ruling handed down on Thursday, the High Court declared the levy unlawful, ordering the city to immediately stop billing residents and reimburse those it already has. The Democratic Alliance (DA)'s Tshwane spokesperson on finance, Jacqui Uys, said this was a victory for the residents of the city. "In February this year, the DA started advocating to the ANC [African National Congress] government to not introduce any new taxes on our residents. "Since then, we have repeatedly warned the government of the day to not use the residents of Tshwane as cash cows."
