Lobby group AfriForum has become the latest organisation to challenge the City of Cape Town’s tariffs.

It follows after the SA Property Owners Association (SAPOA) launched its own legal challenge against the City’s decision to link certain fixed charges to property values in its amended Hope Budget for 2025/26. 

The Cape Town Collective Ratepayers’ Association (CTCRA) has also submitted papers to join SAPOA’s case in having the City’s tariffs declared unconstitutional.

The City’s budget has faced backlash over its fixed charges, namely the Cleaning Tariff, the Fixed Water Charge, and the Fixed Sanitation Charge. 

SAPOA’s legal action is hoping to have the budget declared unconstitutional and invalid.

In court papers, Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis explained in substance that this application questions the role of the City in the determination of a budget at all and whether the City, or any other municipality, “can indeed forge ahead on any new or innovative path to ensure not only better service delivery for all now, but also in the future”.

Now, AfriForum has launched its own court challenge against the City on an urgent basis arguing that it “does not have the power to use the value of a property to determine any fees, surcharges, tariffs, taxes, levies and duties (hereinafter “tariffs”) other than a rate within the definition of and in terms the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act, 6 of 2004 (“the Rates Act”)”.

In court papers submitted in the Western Cape High Court last week, AfriForum wants to have the budget declared invalid until the end of the 2025/2026 financial year, 30 June 2026, “to allow the City to rectify the defects”.

An affidavit by AfriForum’s West Coast district coordinator Jurie Ferreira, said that at the heart of their application is the City’s imposition of a tariff and charges, and AfriForum’s contention that the City does not have the power to use the value of property to do so.

“At this early point, AfriForum must say that this application is not about undermining or detracting from all the good things that the City does right. In AfriForum’s respectful view, the City is one of a small number of municipalities that generally does the right things, and does them in the right way.

“The City and AfriForum obviously also have differing views, and this is one of the few instances where AfriForum and the City do not agree. Despite the continued spirit of cooperation between the City and AfriForum, the public interest compels AfriForum to approach the Honourable Court for relief,” he said.

Ferreira highlights that despite AfriForum and many others making reasonable efforts to persuade and assist the City in the public interest, the City cannot be persuaded.

“AfriForum seeks a declaration that the City does not have the power to use the value of a property to determine these or other tariffs, taxes, levies and duties, and that it can only be used to determine a rate as defined in and in terms of, the Rates Act.

“If AfriForum’s contention is correct and the declaration is given in AfriForum’s favour, the Honourable Court will of necessity have to declare the tariff and charges to be inconsistent with the Constitution and the legality principle,” he said.

“AfriForum acknowledges that there are some facts that may persuade the Honourable Court that it is just and equitable that any declaration of invalidity be suspended for the remainder of this financial year.

“For these reasons and those that follow, AfriForum requests the Honourable Court to declare that the City cannot use the values to determine the tariff and charges; to declare it to be inconsistent with the Constitution and the legality principle- and to suspend the declaration of invalidity,” Ferreira added.

In the affidavit, Ferreira said that although the implementation of a basic charge in Cape Town became necessary during the time drought, and “although the concept of a basic charge is not foreign to the legislative framework, a basic charge for water based on property value as in this case is respectfully, a new invention that is not lawful, rational or reasonable”.

Separately, CTCRA applied to participate as Amicus Curiae, a “friend of the court” in SAPOA’s case against the CoCT. CTRCA said that both SAPOA and the City’s lawyers have indicated that they have no objection to this application. 

The court case is set down for 18 and 19 September.

Chairperson of the CTCRA, Bas Zuidberg, expanded on the submission to the Weekend Argus, explaining: “We support the arguments made by SAPOA. Furthermore, we have highlighted the adverse effect that the linking of fixed water and sewage charges to property values, as well as the separate city-wide cleaning charge, has on the disposable income of the middle class. 

“We point out that contrary to commercial ratepayers, residential ratepayers have no options to offset their increased rates bill through increased rent, product and/or service pricing. The effect on residential ratepayers is therefore possibly more onerous than on commercial ratepayers.

“Finally, we have shown that the City should be able to levy similar amounts through alternative mechanisms that do not rely on property values.”

theolin.tembo@inl.co.za

Source link