Emfuleni Municipality wants National Treasury to again write off portion of its Eskom debt
The municipality owed Eskom R8 billion due to unpaid electricity bills before Treasury scrapped a portion of the debt.
ALSO READ:
- Emfuleni Local Municipality settles R2.6 million debt
- Emfuleni Municipality's deal with Rand Water results in R660m payment towards outstanding debt
After applying for the debt relief programme, Treasury wrote off nearly R2 billion of this debt.
The embattled Emfuleni Local Municipality believes it meets National Treasury's criteria to qualify for another debt write-off.
This time, the municipality is seeking a further R2 billion reduction of its debt to Eskom, less than a year after its previous write-off.
Finance MMC Hassan Mako said the municipality had already begun engaging the relevant authorities in an effort to reduce what it owed the power utility.
"There is also a process that we are undertaking now to see if we can get the second write-off because we believe we meet all the relevant conditions. The amount remaining is R5 billion and if we get another write-off, we'll be left with R3 billion."
The municipality recently landed in trouble again over another outstanding debt owed to Rand Water.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
12 hours ago
- The South African
Court to decide if City of Cape Town is playing dirty with new cleaning tariff
The City of Cape Town is preparing for a legal battle in September as mounting opposition challenges the legality of new fixed charges introduced in its 2025 budget. In court filings, the city has defended its position, while property owners and residents accuse the municipality of unconstitutional overreach. The dispute centres on three new tariffs: a city-wide cleaning levy, a fixed water charge, and a fixed sanitation fee. These charges, unlike traditional service-based billing, are linked to the municipal value of properties, not to actual consumption – prompting strong resistance from civic groups and property owners. Cleaning Tariff : Applies to all properties, calculated by property value; unrelated to any specific services rendered to the property : Applies to all properties, calculated by property value; unrelated to any specific services rendered to the property Fixed Water & Sanitation Tariffs: Charged regardless of actual usage, and based on property value rather than service consumption Critics argue that this approach imposes a regressive financial burden, particularly on middle-class households that cannot offset increased costs like commercial property owners might. The South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) launched a High Court application in July to have the levies scrapped, citing violations of Section 229 of the Constitution, which restricts municipalities to: Property rates Service-based charges Surcharges on these charges Taxes explicitly permitted by national legislation SAPOA says that none of the new charges meet these criteria, and labels them revenue-generation tools under the guise of service delivery. The Cape Town Collective Ratepayers' Association (CTCRA) – representing 40 community groups – has joined the case as a friend of the court, warning that if these levies stand, they may set a precedent for municipalities across South Africa. 'This is not just a fight for Cape Town,' said a CTCRA spokesperson. 'It's about protecting all South Africans from unlawful taxation masked as service fees.' In its answering affidavit, the City argues that it is operating within its legal mandate to provide services and secure the financial sustainability of the metro. It says the new fees support infrastructure development and a 'pro-poor' budget, with wealthier ratepayers subsidising vulnerable communities. Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis has defended the charges as necessary to avoid a R2 billion budget shortfall, warning that removing them would breach the Municipal Finance Management Act by leaving the city with an unfunded budget. The city also disputes SAPOA's constitutional interpretation, arguing that it reflects a 'selective reading' of the law. While city officials have characterised the pushback as a 'rich vs. poor' issue, CTCRA rejects this, noting thousands of objections from residents of all income levels. 'This is not about the wealthy protecting their wealth,' said CTCRA. 'This is about accountability and fair governance.' The matter is scheduled to be heard in the Western Cape High Court on 18 and 19 September 2025. With major implications for municipal finance models across the country, all eyes will be on the outcome. 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
15 hours ago
- IOL News
High Court orders City of Cape Town to pay over R8 million to contractor
The City of Cape Town will have to pay more than R8 million to a construction company for work done on a new electrical depot in Hout Bay. Image: City of Cape Town/ Facebook THE City will have to pay more than R8 million to a construction company for work done on a new electrical depot in Hout Bay after a protracted legal dispute over project delays, contract termination, and unpaid claims. The dispute dates back to 2020 when Pro Khaya Construction was suspended from the site and later terminated the contract, citing repudiation by the City. The matter was referred to adjudication, where Pro Khaya was awarded payment for outstanding work and additional costs. The City challenged the adjudicator's decision in court, but the Western Cape High Court recently found no grounds to interfere and upheld the adjudicator's ruling. Acting Judge Zuko Mapoma ruled: 'In this application, Pro Khaya has succeeded. The respondent is ordered to comply with the Adjudication Determination dated 10 March 2023 published by the Adjudicator Adv JG Vasserman SC. The City was dealt another blow when the judge dismissed its counter application to set aside the adjudicator's determination. Pro Khaya was appointed in 2018 to build the new depot, which included a double-storey administration building, guardhouse, parking structures, and boundary wall - a project valued at over R34 million. The City handed over the site in January 2019, but the project was plagued by delays, disputes over timelines, and tension between the contractor and the principal agent, EBESA Architects, according to the court papers. The issue of the termination of the contract mutated into a dispute that was referred to an adjudicator. Although an initial 2021 adjudication found Pro Khaya's termination of the contract invalid, the company later initiated two further adjudications in March and November 2022 over unresolved issues. These included the City and its agent's failure to issue a final account, certify outstanding payments, return construction guarantees, and recognise claims for time extensions due to delays and civil unrest. A new adjudicator was appointed in January 2023 and, after the City failed to participate, he issued a default ruling in March 2023 in favour of Pro Khaya. 'Pro Khaya contends that the City is bound to comply with the adjudicator's determination, because the latter is an outcome of a dispute resolution mechanism that was employed to resolve a dispute that arose between the parties under the JBCC agreement and its rules, which is the alternative dispute resolution mechanism agreed upon by the parties. 'In resisting the application, the City launches a two-pronged approach in attacking the adjudicator's determination. In its first leg, the City contends that the adjudication determination is invalid and unenforceable for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the adjudicator,' court papers stated. The City further argued that the determination award was 'manifestly unjust and cannot be sustained'. 'The adjudicator acted unreasonably, inexpertly and ultra vires; the adjudicator's determination was made on a default basis; the determination was incompetent in terms of the JBCC contract procedure,' the City had said. However, Judge Mapoma found: 'On the facts, it seems to me that the adjudicator considered the contractors submission and delivered a written determination and expressed reasons for his decision. Accordingly, the Court does not find any reason to set aside the determination. Consequently, the counter-application seeking to review and set aside the determination must fail.' The City said the judgment was being reviewed to "determine the appropriate next steps". Lawyers for Pro Kaya did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. Cape Times
The Citizen
17 hours ago
- The Citizen
Vat-registered schools set for rude ‘wake-up call'
New proposal will force them to deregister, resulting in potentially huge Vat liabilities. A significant number of schools that are currently registered for Value-added tax (Vat) will be forced to deregister from next year. That's if a proposal in the draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (TLAB) is passed into legislation. This policy decision will have massive financial implications for schools in the short term, possibly depleting cash reserves and having substantial cash flow implications. It is likely to have a knock-on effect on school fees going forward. Educational services have always been exempt from Vat, but only if the services were supplied in return for school fees, tuition fees, or payment for lodging. However, services were never exempt if the consideration was not in the form of school fees, tuition fees, or payments for lodging. National Treasury announced that the proposed amendment will come into effect on 1 January 2026. The policy intent was 'always' to exclude schools from the Vat net, it says in its reason for the change. WTS Renmere's Vat specialist Duane Shipp says many schools with commercial activities registered for Vat if they were above the R1 million registration threshold. These commercial activities include, among others, the supply of school uniforms or making available the sports facilities, school hall, swimming pool, and hostels of the school to private clubs or individuals. The schools charged Vat on the supply of these offerings, but they were also able to deduct the Vat incurred as input tax on the cost incurred to purchase the school uniforms, treats for the tuck shop, or the construction of the sport facilities or swimming pool. ALSO READ: Huge rates shock could force Joburg schools to close down Vat Act changes However, the amendment proposes the removal of 'school' and 'school fees' from the wording of the relevant sections in the Vat Act. 'The implication is that all supplies of good or services by schools, regardless of whether it is in return for school fees or not, will be exempt under the Vat Act,' says Shipp. A significant number of schools have been registered for Vat and claiming their input tax on capital expansions for more than a decade, if not longer. ALSO READ: Gauteng schools urged to settle electricity and water bills Vat vendor schools Charles de Wet, tax executive at ENSafrica, says the school as a Vat vendor had to charge Vat when renting the school hall or sports facilities to private clubs or individuals. However, they had the advantage of claiming a percentage of their input Vat on capital projects, and they could also claim a percentage of the input Vat on the overhead costs of the assets on an apportionment basis. This includes a portion of the electricity bill for the floodlights, or a portion of the water used for the sport fields. But, once an entity deregisters as a Vat vendor it must repay the input tax claimed on its capital assets, says De Wet. That is the 'exit' tax, he adds. The effect with the forced deregistration is that all the input Vat claimed on capital assets since registration for Vat must be repaid. Treasury has made a concession, allowing schools that will find themselves in this cash flow predicament to repay the Vat liability in twelve monthly instalments, 'or in so many instalments as the commissioner [of the South African Revenue Service] may decide.' This liability may well run into millions for some of the country's private schools, boarding schools, or more affluent schools. 'There is a big wake-up call coming for some schools,' says Shipp. ALSO READ: Temporary rates reprieve for Joburg schools Second time coming A similar proposal was also introduced in the draft TLAB bill last year, but the amendment extended to schools, technikons, and universities. The proposal was abandoned following an extensive public pushback, particularly from universities. This year, the proposal is back, but only targeted at schools, notes both Shipp and De Wet. The proposal does not fit into the structure of the Vat Act, says De Wet. Typically, it is not entities that are exempt from Vat, but rather the nature of the supply – in this case, educational services. 'It is strange that they are deviating from the format of the act. Treasury is now exempting the entity [schools registered under the SA Schools Act] and not the supply,' says De Wet. Policy intent Shipp also has difficulty understanding the policy intent behind the proposal. 'If the policy intent was always to exclude schools, why has the wording of the act [until now] not reflected the intent,' he asks. He also questions the short notice given to schools. Many schools have probably already passed their budgets for the next calendar year. Accommodating this unforeseen Vat liability will create enormous stress on the school's finances. The knock-on effect is that any commercial endeavour in future will come at a 15% higher price tag. The school will be charged 15% for the school uniforms, the construction of a swimming pool, or the tuck shop treats, but it will no longer be able to deduct its input Vat. Interested parties have until 12 September to publicly comment on the proposed amendment. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
