The origins of this issue can be traced back to the severe drought in the Western Cape in 2018. During this period, residents of the City of Cape Town significantly reduced their water consumption, as encouraged by the municipality. Many households adopted measures such as installing boreholes, harvesting rainwater, and recycling greywater.
While these efforts were environmentally responsible, they had an unintended financial consequence for the City. Municipal revenue declined because water usage dropped. Since sewerage tariffs are linked to water consumption, reduced usage resulted in lower income from sewerage services, even though residents continued to make use of the sewerage infrastructure.
In response, and with the intention of stabilising revenue, the City introduced three new charges:
- a city-wide cleaning charge,
- a fixed water charge, and
- a fixed sewerage charge.
The primary controversy was not the introduction of the charges themselves, but rather the method used to calculate them. Instead of being based on actual consumption, the charges were calculated according to property value.
Municipalities are legally permitted to raise revenue in several ways: through property rates, service charges, surcharges on service fees, or other taxes authorised by legislation. Property rates are calculated by multiplying the market value of immovable property by an amount in Rand that a municipal council has determined and require formal public participation processes before implementation. In contrast, service tariffs must be reasonably proportional to actual usage.
The three charges introduced by the City did not fit neatly into either category. By basing the charges on property value while simultaneously levying VAT, the City blurred the line between property rates and service tariffs. As a result, the charges could not be properly classified under existing legal frameworks.
The court ultimately found that the charges were unlawful and invalid. However, the order of invalidity was suspended, with the ruling taking effect from 30 June 2026. Importantly, the judgment does not operate retrospectively. This means that all charges raised and collected prior to that date remain payable.
This judgment serves as a clear reminder that municipalities, regardless of their intentions or financial pressures, must operate strictly within the bounds of the Constitution and applicable legislation. Good intentions and fiscal challenges do not justify departures from established legal frameworks.
Residents have the right to be charged for services in a manner that is fair and proportionate to their actual usage, rather than based on the market value of their property. The ruling reinforces the principle that municipalities cannot disguise taxes as service charges.
It is essential for municipalities considering the introduction of new charges to ensure full compliance with the legislative framework. This judgment reaffirms the need to strike a careful balance between municipal financial sustainability and fairness to residents.
Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).
