About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAKZPHC 91
|
|
Capital City Housing NPC and Another v Msunduzi Municipality and Others (1046/2021P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 91 (1 September 2023)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
FLYNOTES:
MUNICIPALITY – Rates –
Social
housing property
–
Non-profit
company acquired and developed three properties for the purposes
of providing social housing – Property in
category where it
does not belong resulting in over burdensome rates –
Municipality ordered to determine that the properties
are an
additional category of rateable property of “social housing
properties” – Ordered to amend its Rates
Policy to
incorporate the determination and to levy rates accordingly –
Local Government: Municipal Property Rates
Act 6 of 2004, s 8(3).
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL
DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
Case
No: 1046/2021P
In
the matter between:
CAPITAL
CITY HOUSING
NPC FIRST
APPLICANT
PETER
STRYDOM N.O
SECOND APPLICANT
and
MSUNDUZI
MUNICIPALITY
FIRST
RESPONDENT
THE
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ASSORCIATION
SECOND
RESPONDENT
THE
MINISTER OF COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE
AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS
THIRD RESPONDENT
THE
MEC FOR COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE
AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, KWAZULU –NATAL FOURTH
RESPONDENT
THE
MINISTER OF FINANCE
FITH
RESPONDENT
THE
MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT
SIXTH
RESPONDENT
THE
MEC FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENT,
KWAZULU-NATAL
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
ORDER
1.
The first respondent is ordered to determine in
terms of section 8 (3) of
Local Government Municipal Property Rates
Act no.6 of 2004
that the following properties owned by the first
applicant are an additional category of rateable property of ‘social
housing
properties;
(a)
a property known as Acacia Park at 1[...] O[...]
Road (Portion 10 of Erf 8[...] Pietermaritzburg which consist of 311
residential
units.
(b)
a property known as Aloe Ridge at 2[...] W[...]
Road (Portion 2[...] of Erf 1[...], Pietermaritzburg) which consist
of 952 residential
units
(c)
a property known as Signal Hill at 4[...] N[...]
Road (Sub-portion 8[...] of portion 4[...] of Erf 3[...],
Pietermaritzburg) which
consists of 393 residential units.
2.
The first respondent is ordered to comply with parag1 above within
thirty (30)
days from the date of this order.
3. The first
respondent is ordered to amend its Rates Policy to incorporate the
determination and the consequences thereof
made in terms of paragraph
1 of this order within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.
4. The first
respondent is ordered to levy rates on the first applicant’s
abovementioned properties in terms of
this order as from the time it
started to levy rates on the said properties.
5. The first respondent
is ordered to pay the costs of the application including costs of two
counsel where so employed.
JUDGMENT
Delivered
on:
Mngadi
J
[1]
The applicant seeks an order declaring a provision in first
respondent’s Rates
Policy and the definition of ‘specified
public benefit activity’ in
s1
of the Local Government:
Municipal Property Rates Act No 6 of 2004 (Rates Act) inconsistent
with the Constitution. The applicant
by the relief seeks to
obtain rebates on rates comparable to that of public benefit
organisations (PBOs). The first, third, and
fourth respondents oppose
the application.
[2]
The first applicant is Capital City Housing NPC a non-profit company
as defined in
the Companies Act No.71 of 2008 (Companies Act) in
business rescue. The second applicant is Pieter Hendrick
Strydom an adult
insolvency practitioner appointed for the first
applicant in terms of chapter 6 of the
Companies Act as
first
applicant’s business rescue practitioner.
[3]
The first respondent is Msunduzi Municipality a municipality
established in terms
of s12 of the Local Government: Municipal
Structures Act 117 of 1998 (Municipal Structures Act). The second
respondent is the South
African Local Government Association
established and recognised in terms of the
Organised Local Government
Act No 52 of 1997
. The third respondent is the Minister of
Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs a minister of state
in the government
of the Republic of South Africa. The fourth
respondent is the Member of the Executive Council representing
Co-Operative Governance
and Traditional Affairs in the Province of
KwaZulu – Natal.
The
fifth respondent is the Minister of Finance a minister of a state
department in the National Government. The sixth respondent
is
the Minister of Hauman Settlement a Minister of a state department in
the National Government. The seventh respondent is the
MEC for Human
Settlement a Member of the Executive Council in the Provincial
Government in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal.
[4]
The first applicant is a duly accredited social housing institution
functioning as
a social housing institution as defined in the Social
Housing Act No. 16 of 2008 (Housing Act). It has acquired and
developed
three properties within the municipality district of the
first respondent. The first property consists of 311
residential
units, the second property consists of 952 residential
units and the third property consists of 393 residential units.
The
first applicant owns and manages the three properties for the
purposes of providing ‘social housing’ as defined in the
Housing Act.
[5]
The Housing Act seeks to contribute to the realisation of a
constitutional right of
access to adequate housing. The
Constitution proscribes the three spheres of government to promote
the establishment, development
and maintenance of socially and
economically viable communities and for the provision of safe and
healthy living conditions.
The Housing Act defines social
housing to mean ‘a rental or co-operative housing option for
low to medium income households
at a level of a scale and built form
which requires institutionalised management, and which is provided by
social housing institutions
or other delivery agents in approved
projects in designated restructuring zones with the benefit of public
funding. Section
2 of the Housing Act provides:
‘
(1)
In giving priority to the needs of low- and medium-income households
in respect of social housing development the National,
provincial and
Local spheres of government and social housing institutions must-
(a) ensure
their respective housing programmes are responsive to local housing
demands, and special priority must be
given to the needs of women,
children, child-headed households, persons with disabilities and the
elderly;
(b) support
the economic development of low to medium income communities by
providing housing close to jobs, markets
and transport aid by
stimulating job opportunities to emerging entrepreneurs in the
housing service and construction industries;
(c) afford
residents the necessary dignity and privacy by providing residents
with clean, healthy and safe environment;
(d) not
discriminate against residents on any of the grounds set out in
section 9 of the Constitution, including individuals
affected by HIV
and AIDS;
(e) consult
with interested individuals in all phases of social housing
development;
(f)
ensure the sustainable and viable growth of affordable social housing
as an objective of housing policy;
(g)
facilitate the involvement of residents and key stakeholders through
consultation, information sharing, education,
training and skills
transfer, thereby empowering residents;
(h) ensure
secure tenure for residents in social housing institutions on the
basis of the general provision governing
the relationship between
tenants and landlords as set out in the Rental Housing Act, 1999 (Act
No 50 of 1999), and between primary
housing co-operatives and its
members as set out in the Co-operatives Act,2005 (Act No 14 of 2005)
(i)…
[6]
Section 14 of the Housing Act as functions of social housing
institutions, provides:
(1)
Social housing institutions must:-
(a)
comply on an ongoing basis with the criteria which qualify for them
for accreditation;
(b)
acquire, develop, manage, or both develop and manage, approved
projects primarily for low income residents with joint
support of
local authorities;
(c)
promote the creation of quality living environments for low income
residents;
(d)
re-invest operational surpluses generated as a result of funding
provided in terms of the social housing programme, in
further
approved projects;
(e)
consult with municipalities with a view to developing social housing
stock;
(f)
enter into and comply with annual performance agreements with
municipalities on approved projects in their areas
of jurisdiction;
(g)
inform residents on consumer rights and obligations in respect of
social housing;
(h)
observe and operate within government policy on social housing
(i)
…
[7]
The applicants contend that one way of promoting the objectives of
the Constitution
and the Housing Act is to provide affordable quality
housing to as many people as possible is affording providing social
housing
institutions some relief in respect of rates and taxes.
That enables social housing institutions to acquire and maintain
reasonable stock of accommodation and to keep rentals at affordable
levels.
[8]
The first applicant states that its working capital consists of
immovable property.
The rates bill is its greatest expense.
The expenses schedule attached shows that rates by far is a major
monthly expense.
The first applicant’s only source of
income is the rental from its tenants. The issue of rates is
critical for the
existence of the first applicant. The first
applicant is a non-profit company and any savings from reduced costs
accrue for
the benefit of its social housing enterprise.
[9]
The applicants state that to obtain tax relief, including rates
relief, social housing
institutions are required to be approved as
Public Benefit Organisations (PBOs) in terms of section 30 of the
Income Tax Act No.
58 of 1962 (Income Tax Act).). The first
applicant is an approved PBO. The applicants refer to an
attached certificate
dated 27 January 2003 issued by South African
Revenue Service which evidences the approval of Msunduzi Housing
Association’s
exemption. The applicants refer to the provisions
of the section 8 read with s15 the Rates Act which provides that
properties owned
by PBO’s and used for specified public benefit
activities area placed by the municipality in a category conferring
on the
owners thereof preferential rates rebate. The applicants
point out that since item 3 of Part 1 of the 9
th
Schedule
6 of the Income Tax Act in the definition of ‘specified public
benefit activity’ excludes ‘land and
housing’, the
first applicant is excluded from the said category. The
applicants maintain that the exclusion is arbitrary,
unjustified and
discriminatory to it, and the first respondent in its Rates Policy to
align itself with the Rates Act excludes
the first applicant.
[10]
The applicants state that following the provisions of s19.3 of the
Msunduzi Rates Policy, the
first applicant on 30 July 2019 applied to
the Chief Financial Officer to have its properties determined as
‘public benefit
organisation properties. The first
respondent refused the application, and it pointed out that the
definition excluded the
applicants’ properties. The first
respondent maintains that the first applicant’s properties for
rates classification
are residential properties qualifying for the
rates relief in that the first Rr15 000 of the market value of
the property
excused.
[11]
The applicants state that if its properties were classified as public
benefit organisation property
it would qualify for relief of 75%
rates rebate on the value of each property. The municipal
values of its three properties
are R66.6 million, R178.5 million and
R92.8 million respectively. The applicants in addition,
indicate that even the first
R15 000 of the market value for which
rates are not charged is not the market value of each residential
unit in a block but refers
to a registered cadastral unit. It
results in it receiving no relief and being overcharged for rates
which is illogical and
indicates that it is entitled to a relief.
[12]
The applicants submit that the provision referred to of the Msunduzi
Rates Policy is unreasonable
and irrational. Similarly,
contends the applicants, the Rates Act in that respect is
unconstitutional in providing that social
housing is not a ‘specified
public benefit activity’.
[13]
The first respondent in the answering affidavit claims that the
applicants have not alleged and
have not provided factual basis which
National Economic Policies have been materially and unreasonably
prejudiced by the first
respondent’s Rates Policy. In
addition, claims first respondent, there are no factual basis to
contend that exclusion
of particular PBOs such as social housing
institutions from obtaining rates relief offend against first
respondent’s obligation
to take reasonable measures to achieve
progressive provision of affordable housing.
[14]
The first respondent admits that the first applicant conducts
business in the housing sphere
in terms of the Housing Act,
incorporated with a specific aim of providing affordable rental
accommodation to households earning
between R2 000 and R15 000 per
month. It states that the business of the first applicant and
its operations are conducted
in conjunction with the Provincial and
National Government. Government grants are awarded to the first
applicant to assist
it with its capital expenditure in the
construction of low-cost housing, and the rental the first applicant
can charge is regulated
by the Social Housing Regulatory Authority.
The first respondent points out that the relied sought by the
applicants is drastic
and it will impact negatively on the revenue of
Local Authorities. The first applicant, argues first
respondent, is entitled
to apply for the amendment of the first
respondent’s rates policy in terms of s3 of the Rates Act, and
to develop its properties
not as block of flats but as individually
owned units.
[15]
The second respondent has not taken part in those proceedings and
fifth, sixth and seventh respondents
filed notices to abide by the
decision of the court. The third and fourth respondents
contend that the applicants have
not laid down any factual basis for
contending that the first respondent’s rate policy and impinged
definition of ‘specified
public benefit activity’
materially and unreasonably prejudice national economic policy. In
addition, they contend that the
applicants have failed to exhaust an
internal remedy provided in section 16 of the Rates Act which
empowers the Minister to intervene
where a municipality has not
exercised properly its power to levy rates on property. They
contend that the first applicant,
as an entity, is not a bearer of
rights envisaged in s26 of the constitution because a right to access
to adequate housing applies
only to natural persons.
[16]
The respondents contend that rates are a source of revenue critical
for municipalities which
receive a small portion of the nationally
collected revenue. The relief sought by the applicants, if
granted, it is argued,
shall result in the reduction of rates to be
collected by the municipalities. The third respondent disputes
that if the applicant
properties were categorised as public benefit
organisation properties, they should receive a 75% rebate on the
value of each property
and states that it is in fact up to 25% of the
residential rate.
[17]
The fourth respondent in an affidavit deposed to by the Chief
Director in charge of the monitoring
and support of municipalities’
contends that there are other options for rate payers to lobby and
motivate for rates rebates
and concessions within the current
legislation, namely, participation in the annual review of the Rate
Policy, applying for concession,
in terms of clause 22.5 of the
Msunduzi Rates Policies by a developer, converting residential
property to sectional title
ownership, etc. The fourth
respondent states that the exclusion of the first applicant in the
Rates Act and the Rates Policy
is consistent with the exclusion of
the first applicant from the category of favoured institutions in the
Ninth Schedule to the
Income Tax Act, and therefore, the exclusion is
logical and rational. The differentiation, argues fourth
respondent, is not
unfair as a result, the Rates Policy and the Rates
in the claimed respects are not unconstitutional.
[18]
The applicants in reply state that the opposing papers raised grounds
which are technical and
superficial. No justifiable reason is
given why the impugned legislative provisions oppressive to the
applicants were necessary
and in line with constitutional
provisions. The retrospective effect of the relief from the
year 2000 is not over burdensome.
The applicants deny that the
rates revenue from housing institution is such that if restricted it
will have a
measure impact in the revenue of Local
authority. The applicant is the only social housing institution in
the Msunduzi Municipality
area.
[19]
The first respondent exercises its power to levy rates over a
property in accordance with the
Section 229 of the Constitution, the
provisions of the Rates Act and its Rates Policy. Section 3 of
the Rates Act provides
that a Local Government Rates Policy must be
consistent with the Rates Act and,
inter alia
, must treat
persons equally. Section 7 of the Rates Act obliges municipality to,
subject to specified exclusions, levy rates on
all rateable
properties in its area. Section 8 of the Rates Act empowers a
municipality, in terms of the
criteria
set out in the Rates
Policy, to levy different rates on different categories of rateable
property determined in subsection (2) and
(3), which must be
determined according to the use of the property, or the permitted use
of the property, or as combination of
the use and permitted use of
the property. Section 8(2) of the Rates Act obliges a municipality to
determine specified categories
of rateable property in terms of ss
(1), provided that such property category exists within the
municipality.
[20]
The first step is for a category of rateable property to exist within
the municipal area. The
second step is for the municipality to
determine in terms of s 8(2) the said category of rateable property.
The next step is for
the municipality in its Rates Policy determined
criteria
applicable for determination of rates on the category
determined. The municipality in its Rates Policy, acting in
terms of
section 15 of the Rates Act, may grant companies, reductions
and rebates in respect of rates.
[21]
The following is common cause. The first applicant’s
properties are not residential properties
in the hands of the first
applicant. They constitute its stock. They are properties for
use as social housing units. They
are used to provide
rental accommodation to qualifying persons. It is incorrect to
regard them as residential properties.
A block with multiple
units is one property. The value of the block takes into
account the profit generated by the
rental income.
[22] The
first respondent has placed the first applicant’s properties in
the category of residential properties
and states that the first
applicant losses the accumulative benefit solely because it elects to
develop its properties as blocks
of apartments which accumulatively
hold one single title. And that this serves to increase the value of
the entire property, however,
if the first applicant develops its
property as sectional title units or any available mechanism which
separates the title of the
units then it would derive this benefit
per unit. The applicants state that section 5 of the Rates Act does
not confer upon the
applicant any right to demand an amendment of
first respondent’s Rates Policy. Further, the first respondent
has no intention
to modify its Rates Policyy. Furthermore, the
provisions of section 5(2) of the Rates Act are limited by ‘specified
public
benefit activity’ definition and that as long as the
definition of ‘specified public benefit activity’
remains,
no remedy within the existing provisions is available to the
applicants.
[23]
The applicants in the notice of motion set out the relief they seek
as follows:
‘
1.
It is declared that
the following legislative provisions are inconsistent with the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
Act, No. 108 of 1996
(the Constitution)
1.1
section 1.31 of First Respondent’s Rates
Policy (the Msunduzi Rates Policy)
1.2
the definition of the term ‘specified
public benefit activity’ contained in section 1 of the Local
Government : Municipal
Property Rates Act No. 2 of 2004 (the Rates
Act).
2.
The said provisions
are amended as follows:
2.1 In respect of
section 1.31 of the Msunduzi Rates Policy:
(a)
the words following”. Excluding item 3
and 5…” are deleted from the first sentence.
(b)
the words “for items 1, 2 and 4 o0f the
schedule” are deleted from the second sentence.
2. In respect of
the said definition in section 1 of the Rates Act: the words “in
item 1(welfare and humanitarian),
item 2 (health care) and item 4
(education and development) of” are deleted
The applicants then seek
an order that the first respondent be ordered to reconsider the
levying of rates on first applicant’s
properties from the time
it levied rates on first applicants properties in accordance with the
amendments sought above in the relief.
[24] The
first respondent took issue with the vague retrospectivity effect of
the relief sought. All the opposing respondents
took serious issue
with the broad impact of the relief sought, if granted. The
respondents argue that the applicants cannot
rely on section 26 of
the Constitution which provides that everyone has the right to have
access to adequate housing since the
first applicant is not a natural
person. But in my view, the argument loses sight of the fact that
social housing institutions
are for the realisation of the
constitutionally enshrined right to access to housing by natural
persons.
[25] The
applicants by the relief they seek, seek to effect amendments to the
Rates Act resulting in a consequential
amendment to the Rates Policy
of the first respondent. The amendment sought has the effect of
including in a category of entities
specifically excluded by the
legislation. The court is required to exercise a legislative
power the Constitution reserves
for parliament. The amendment
sought has government policy implications for the whole country which
requires wide consultations
before a decision on it is made. It
is undesirable for a court to assume for itself such a task. The
declaration of a national
legislation provision as unconstitutional
is to be done if absolutely necessary, and it be done cautiously,
judiciously and pragmatically.
See
Kause v Minister of
Home Affairs & others
1996 (4) SA 965
(NmS 974D-E/F;
Bernstein v Others v Bester& Others
1996(2) SA 751 (CC)
para 2)
[26] The
first respondent points out what it regards as alternative remedies
available to the applicants. It refers
to a right to request an
amendment to the first respondent Rates Policy. However, the
first respondent argues that its Rates
Policy as it stands is in line
with the provisions of the Rates Act. In my view, the first
respondent has not pointed out
any viable alternative remedy
available to the applicants. It is clear that the first
respondent is not prepared to consider
any remedy that may result in
the reduction of its revenue. The first respondent
prefers that the first applicant should
have developed its properties
differently without pointing out anything wrong in the manner the
first applicant developed its properties.
[27]
The first respondent, as well as the other respondents,
fully comprehend the predicament of the applicants.
The first
respondent in its answering affidavit dealt at length with the
legislative framework within which rates are levied.
But for
some reason it saw no way out for the applicants. The fourth
respondent likewise in a detailed affidavit deposed
to by its Chief
Director in charge of the monitoring and support of municipalities
in respect of their functions and powers
in terms of the of Rates Act
dealt with the provisions of section 8 which provides for
differentiation based on different categories
determined according to
use says that the avenue open to applicants is to apply for amendment
to first respondent’s rates
policy or to convert its
properties to sectional title units.
[28] The
court is a court of law and justice. It is not confined to
granting the relief as prayed for in the notice
of motion. It
may grant any relief supported by the averments made in the papers.
It must be a relief falling within
the confines of the case set out
by the applicant. The parties must have been given ample opportunity
to address the court on the
relief the court considers granting.
The granting of the envisaged relief should cause no procedural
prejudice to the respondents.
See
Donelly v Barclays
National
Bank Ltd
1990 (1) SA 375
(W) at 380H-381B for
comparable considerations..
[26]
The applicants have made a case for a clear distinct category of
rateable property. That such
category exists within the municipality
area. The municipality has not determined the existence of the said
category and has failed
to provide for it in its Rates Policy.
Instead, the municipality forces the applicants’ rateable
property to a category it
does not belong resulting in over
burdensome rates levied on the applicants, which is irrational and
unlawful. Section 8 of the
Rates Act provides:
‘
Subject
to section 19, a municipality may in terms of the criteria set out in
its rates policy, levy different rates for different
categories of
rateable property, determined in subsection (2) and (3) which must be
determined according to the –
(a)
use of the property;
(b)
permissible use of the property, or
(c)
a combination of (a) and (b).
(2)
A municipality must determine the following
categories of rateable property in terms of subsection (1). Provided
such property category
exists within the municipal jurisdiction.
(a)
Residential properties;
(b)
industrial properties;
(c)
business and commercial properties;
(d)
agricultural properties;
(e)
miming properties;
(f)
properties owned by an organ of state and used for
public service purposes;
(g)
public service infrastructure properties;
(h)
properties owned by public benefit organisations
and used for specified public benefit activities;
(i)
properties used for multiple purposes, subject to
section9 ; or
(j)
any other category of property as may be
determined by the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of
Finance, by notice
in the Gazette.
(3) In addition to the
categories of rateable property determined in terms of subsection (2)
a municipality may determine additional
categories of rateable
property, including vacant land. Provided that, with the exception of
vacant land, the determination of
such property categories does not
circumvent the categories of rateable property what must be
determined in terms of subsection
(2).
[28]
It is correct as argued by the applicants that the first respondent’s
Rats Policy together
with the Rates Act excluded social housing
property from preferential rates granted to public benefit
organisations. The applicants
then contend that as a result of the
aforesaid exclusion, social housing institutions are excluded from
the benefit of specialised
categorisation as contemplated in section
8 of the Rates Act. It seems the applicant, inexplicably in my view,
did not consider
a relief that the first respondent in terms of
section 8 of the Rates Act adds in terms of section 8 (3) an
additional categorisation
of social housing property.
[29] The applicant
regards the exclusion from benefiting as a specialised category as
discrimination, but, it is trite that differentiation
is not
necessarily discrimination. The social housing property is a distinct
category created by the national legislation, the
Housing Act.
It promotes access to adequate housing a constitutional imperative.
It is the obligation of all spheres
of government to promote all
measures directed at the realisation of constitutional rights.
[30]
The provisions of s8(3) of the Rates Act grants power to be exercised
by the municipality. It does
not require that the property
owner must apply for the exercise of the power. If the
municipality levied rates not
in accordance with the law, it is not
entitled not to account for the amount for the rates unlawfully
levied. The municipality
once it has placed the first
applicant’s property in a proper category and it has amended
its Rates Policy to provide the
criteria
for determining rates
for the determined category will be in a position from the
information in its possession in consultation with
the applicants to
determine the rates that should have been levied on the applicants’
properties and to do the necessary
reconciliation.
[31]
In the circumstances, the relief sought by the applicant in the
notice of motion is not granted. In
the place thereof it is
ordered as follows:
1.
The first respondent is ordered to determine in
terms of section 8 (3) of
Local Government Municipal Property Rates
Act no.6 of 2004
that the following properties owned by the first
applicant are an additional category of rateable property of ‘social
housing
properties;
(a)
a property known as Acacia Park at 1[...] O[...]
Road (Portion 1[…] of Erf 8[...] Pietermaritzburg which
consist of 311 residential
units.
(b)
a property known as Aloe Ridge at 2[...] W[...]
Road (Portion 2[...] of Erf 1[...], Pietermaritzburg) which consist
of 952 residential
units
(c)
a property known as Signal Hill at 4[...] N[...] Road (Sub-portion
8[...] of portion
4[...] of Erf 3[...], Pietermaritzburg) which
consists of 393 residential units.
2.
The first respondent is ordered to comply with parag1 above within
thirty (30)
days from the date of this order.
3. The first
respondent is ordered to amend its Rates Policy to incorporate the
determination and the consequences thereof
made in terms of paragraph
1 of this order within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.
4. The first
respondent is ordered to levy rates on the first applicant’s
abovementioned properties in terms of
this order as from the time it
started to levy rates on the said properties.
5. The first respondent
is ordered to pay the costs of the application including costs of two
counsel where so employed.
Mngadi J
APPEARANCES
Case
Number:
1046/2021P
Applicants
represented by:
Adv
DP Crampton
Instructed
by:
Hay
and Scott Attorneys
PIETERMARITZBURG
First
Respondent represented by:
Adv.
V. Moodley
Instructed
by:
Mathew
Francis Inc.
PIETERMARITZBURG
Third
Respondent represented by:
TSI
Mthembu SC with D Nyembe
Instructed
by:
State
Attorney
PIETERMARITZBURG
Fourth
Respondent represented by:
A.J.
Dickson SC
PKX
Attorneys
PIETERMARITZBURG
Date
of Hearing:
17
August 2023
Date
of Judgment:
01
September 2023