Lampe v City of Johannesburg (2021/27693) [2025] ZAGPJHC 777 (14 August 2025)

Case Note

Lampe v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (unreported judgment of the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, delivered 18 January 2023)

Reportability

The judgment is reportable because it clarifies the circumstances in which a municipality may levy “illegal-use” penalty rates and charges when a property owner in fact holds historic consent to conduct a particular business from the premises. It is significant in three respects. First, it affirms that a successor municipality is bound by the consents, licences and approvals issued by its predecessor. Secondly, it emphasises that municipal officials must act in a coordinated, constitutionally responsive manner rather than in departmental silos. Thirdly, it grants robust declaratory and interdictory relief that will guide both municipalities and ratepayers on the limits of municipal power to impose punitive tariffs.

Cases Cited

Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg 2008 (3) SA 208 (CC).

Legislation Cited

Randburg Town Planning Scheme, 1976; Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (referenced implicitly in relation to municipal service disconnections); Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (sections on administrative justice and legality).

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rule of court was cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The applicant, Ms Lampe, has operated a small callanetics studio from her Randburg residential property since 1984 under a licence issued by the former Randburg Town Council. In 2017 the respondent municipality, which succeeded that council after local-government restructuring, issued a notice alleging that the property was being used illegally because no town-planning consent existed. From July 2019 the municipality began levying “illegal-use” penalty rates and, when Ms Lampe refused to pay, disconnected her electricity supply and instituted action to recover the arrears.

Although the municipality eventually granted a fresh consent-use application in October 2020 and withdrew its civil action, it persisted in levying the enhanced charges. Ms Lampe therefore applied to the High Court for declaratory, review and interdictory relief to have all “illegal-use” charges from 1 July 2019 set aside and her account recalculated.

The court held that the 1984 licence constituted binding municipal consent for the land use, rendering the 2017 contravention notice and all ensuing penalty rates ultra vires. It granted the wide-ranging relief sought and awarded attorney-and-client costs against the municipality, criticising its “unresponsive and high-handed” conduct.

Key Issues

The first issue was whether the historic 1984 business licence amounted to valid and enduring municipal consent under the relevant town-planning scheme. The second was whether, in the face of that consent, the municipality could lawfully classify the property as being put to an illegal use and impose punitive tariff charges. The third was the appropriate remedial order where a municipality persists in unlawful billing over an extended period despite repeated protestations and a prior court order.

Held

The court found that the grant of the business licence necessarily entailed town-planning approval for the specified land use. The municipality, as successor in law, was bound by that approval and could not contend that no consent existed between July 2019 and October 2020. The penalty rates were therefore unlawful from inception. Declaratory, restorative and interdictory relief was warranted, together with a punitive costs order on the attorney-and-client scale.

THE FACTS

Ms Lampe has run a small home-based exercise studio from her property since 1984 with the formal approval of the erstwhile Randburg Town Council. That approval took the form of an annually renewable licence which after ten years was renewed indefinitely. For more than three decades the municipality raised ordinary residential rates without objection.

In December 2017 the present City of Johannesburg served a notice alleging unauthorised use in contravention of the Randburg Town Planning Scheme. Despite two explanatory letters enclosing her historic licence, the City ignored her representations. In July 2019 it began charging an additional R9 400 per month in “illegal-use” penalties, abruptly inflating her municipal account.

Unable to pay, Ms Lampe withheld the disputed charges. The City responded by disconnecting her electricity in early 2020 and suing for the arrears. Vally J ordered reconnection and directed the parties to debate the charges; the City declined. Ultimately, in October 2020, it granted a fresh consent-use application yet inexplicably continued levying the penalty tariff. Faced with ongoing threats of service disconnection, Ms Lampe approached the High Court for relief.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether the 1984 licence constituted continuing municipal consent for the property’s use as a studio and, if so, whether the City acted lawfully in designating the use as illegal and imposing enhanced rates from July 2019 to October 2020. It also needed to determine the appropriate remedy for the City’s persistence in unlawful billing after October 2020 and whether the circumstances justified a punitive costs order.

ANALYSIS

The court commenced by observing that the City conceded the binding nature of the 1984 licence but nonetheless argued that Ms Lampe should have applied afresh under sections 13 and 14 of the Randburg Town Planning Scheme. That contention, the court held, was “far-fetched” because it made no practical sense for a municipality to issue a business licence while withholding the very planning consent necessary for the business to operate.

It emphasised that municipal departments are not “separate institutions” and may not take “insulated decisions” in isolation. Citing the Constitutional Court in Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, it noted that constitutional governance demands coordinated, responsive administration. The City’s reliance on bureaucratic compartmentalisation to justify the penalties was inconsistent with that duty.

Finally, the court rejected the notion that the contravention notice of December 2017 could legitimise the penalties, because the notice itself was premised on the false assertion that no approval existed. Once that predicate fell away, the penalties lacked any legal foundation from their first imposition.

REMEDY

The court declared the imposition of illegal-use tariff charges unlawful, ordered the City to reverse every such charge from 1 July 2019 onward, interdicted it from levying similar charges in future, and directed it to furnish a fully recalculated municipal account within thirty days. It also interdicted the City from terminating services on the basis of the disputed charges and awarded costs against the municipality on the attorney-and-client scale.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A successor municipality is bound by licences and consents issued by its predecessor unless lawfully withdrawn or superseded. Where a valid historical consent exists, a municipality may not classify the land use as illegal for rating purposes. Municipal departments must act in a coordinated manner; bureaucratic compartmentalisation cannot defeat a right flowing from a valid approval. Unlawful municipal billing practices attract declaratory, restorative and interdictory relief, and a court may award punitive costs where the municipality’s conduct is unresponsive, high-handed or obstructive.