SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2025-140081
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO
(3) REVIEWED: YES/NO
27 October 2025
In the matter between:
OLIFANTSFONTEIN RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG Respondent
________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_______________________________________________________________
AC OOSTHUIZEN AJ:
2
1 On 6 October 2025 I granted the order annexed hereto marked “ A” in the
above matter. The matter was not opposed. When granting the order, I
suggested to counsel for the Applicant that written reasons for my order
might serve a useful purpose and provide guidance to the City of
Johannesburg, in its future application of the Tariff referred to below.
Counsel agreed with the proposal. These are my reasons.
2 The Applicant is the owner of Erf 1[ …] Sagewood Extension 16 (“ the
Applicant’s property ”), which is situated within the First Respondent’s
municipal area. Apartments comprising 270 residential units are situated
on the Applicant’s property. Respondent renders v arious municipal
services to the Applicant’s property, pursuant to Chapter 8 of the Local
Government: Municipal Systems Act, No 32 of 2000 as amended (“ the
Systems Act”).
3 In terms of Section 11(3)(i) of the Systems Act, a municipality is
empowered to impose and recover surcharges on fees, and implement
tariffs. Section 74 of the Systems Act requires a municipal counsel to
adopt and implement a Tariff Policy for the levying of fees for municipal
services. Section 74(2) requires that users of municipal services be
treated equally in the application of tariffs; that tariffs must reflect direct
and indirect methods of subsidisation for tariffs provided for poor
households; and that tariffs must reflect the cost reasonably associated
3
with the rendering of services. Section 74(2)(d) states that an extension of
subsidisation of tariffs for poor households should be fully disclosed.
4 Section 75 requires a municipality to adopt by -laws to give effect to the
implementation and enforcement of its t ariff policy. Sections 21 to 24 of
the Municipal Finance Management Act, No 56 of 2003 as amended (“ the
MFMA”) provide structures in terms whereof annual budgets are prepared,
published for participatory comment by local communities, and approved.
Section 24(2)(c)(ii) requires that the annual budget must set out any
municipal tariffs for the budget year.
5 This matter concerns the Respondent’s Sewerage Tariff for 2025/26. The
2025/26 Tariff was preceded by various tariffs which drew a distinction
between a dwelling unit, a multi -dwelling and a block of flats. Thus, for
example, the definition section of the 2023/24 Tariff defined the term
“dwelling unit ” as meaning one or more rooms designed as a unit for
occupancy. A multi -dwelling was defined as an arrangement of premises
that comprises more than one dwelling unit on a property. A block of flats
was defined as a single multistorey building which comprises more than
one dwelling unit.
6 The 2023/24 Tariff, in common with various of its predecessors, provided
for a subsidised charge to be levied in respect of blocks of flats.
4
7 It is alleged that the 2024/25 Tariff made a differentiation between a block
of flats, a dwelling unit and a multi-dwelling. These distinctions were much
criticised and became the subject of several legal challenges. In due
course, and following a public participation process, the 2025/26 Tariff
was published. Of relevance to this application are the provisions in the
2025/26 Tariff dealing with subsidised multi -dwellings. These provisions
(“the subsidisation provisions”) read as follows:
“Subsidized multi-dwellings:
(a) A multi-dwelling where the property rates value for each unit
does not exceed R700 000.00 (Where the rates valuation is
provided for the total stand the rates valuation should be
divided by the number of dwelling units to get the value per
dwelling unit) shall qualify for a subsidised charge of
R314.68.
Other multi-dwellings:
(b) Where two or more dwelling units have been erected on a
single erf, an erf size shall be determined in respect of each
dwelling house erected on such property, by dividing the
area of the erf by the number of dwelling units erected
thereon. The charge shall then be levied in respect of each
5
such dwelling unit in accordance with the provisions of
sections 2.1 above, provided that the minimum charge shall
be: R612.58 per unit per month.
(c) Where information to the satisfaction of the Managing
Director: Johannesburg Water, or his duly authorized , has
not been furnished as per the number of dwelling units on a
complex: for each kilolitre or part of the metered or estimated
water consumption: R46.40/kl.”
8 Applicant’s property is designed to provide accommodation for low to
middle income households in the Midrand area. The housing offered by
Applicant services a much- needed and unfulfilled section of the
Johannesburg housing market.
9 Up to the date in which these proceedings were launched on 15 August
2025, Respondent had consistently failed to grant the tariff subsidy
referred to in paragraph 7 above to the multi-dwelling units on Applicant’s
property having a property rate value of less than R700 000.00. Over a
period of some five months, various queries, by telephone and email, were
addressed by Applicant to Respondent seeking to ascertain why the
subsidy was not being made available, did not elicit any reply from
Respondent. Eventually, on 2 May 2025, a written response was received
6
from Mr E Mohau, an Operational Manager in the employ of Respondent ,
which contained the following statement:
“After consulting the management regarding the amendments
made to the lower tariff framework referred to in your email, it has
been confirmed as per the approved 2024/25 Tariff Policy found in
Annexure B2.2, that the amended subsidised sewar tariff charge of
R314.68 shall be applicable to subsidised multi -dwellings. This
refers to housing where a portion of the cost is covered by the
government in order to make housing more affordable for lower
income individuals”. [Emphasis supplied]
10 Subsequent interactions between Applicant and Respondent did not lead
to a reversal of the stance as recorded in the letter of 2 May 2025.
Applicant accordingly launched these proceedings, contending that the
stance recorded in the letter of 2 May 2025 constitutes a decision falling
within the definition of the term “ decision” in Section 1 of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act, No 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”).
11 Quite clearly, on the material made available, that which is recorded by
Respondent in the letter of 2 May 2025 does indeed constitute such a
decision, and the statement in the letter quoted in paragraph 9 above will
hereinafter be referred to as “the May decision”.
12 The application for review and declaratory relief brought by the Applicant
requires, firstly, an interpretation of the subsidy provisions in the 2025/26
7
budget. That process of interpretation is to be undertaken in the light of
what was said in the oft -quoted Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v
Endumeniv Municipality 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA) at para 18 as follows:
“The present state of the law can be expressed as follows:
Interpretation is the process of attributing meaning to the words used
in a document, be it legislation, some other statutory instrument, or
contract, having regard to the context provided by reading the
particular provision or provisions in the light of the document as a
whole and the circumstances attendant upon it coming into existence.
Whatever the nature of the document, consideration must be given to
the language used in the light of the ordinary rules of grammar and
syntax; the context in which the provision appears; the apparent
purpose to which it is directed and the material known to those
responsible for its production. Where more than one meaning is
possible each possibility must be weighed in the light of all these
factors. The process is objective, not subjective. A sensible meaning
is to be preferred to one that leads to insensible or unbusinesslike
results or undermines the apparent purpose of the document. The
‘inevitable point of departure is the language of the provision itself’,
read in context and having regard to the purpose of the provision and
the background to the preparation and production of the document.”
13 The dictum in Endumeni has been referred to and adopted in a host of
subsequent cases, and it would serve no purpose to trawl through these.
It is useful to refer to the comment found in Capitec Bank Holdings Ltd &
Another v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd 2022 (1) SA 100
(SCA) at para 50, namely that Endumeni emphasises that the meaning of
a term is to be understood “ not simply by selecting standard definitions of
8
particular words, often taken from dictionaries, but also by understanding
the words and sentences that comprise the contested term as they fit into
the larger structure of the agreement, its context and purpose”.
14 These authorities apply not only to contractual interpretation but to the
interpretation of legislation, and indeed to written instruments generally.
There is in my view no reason why the aforesaid principles should not be
invoked in interpreting provisions of a municipal budget.
15 The subsidised multi -dwelling provisions in the 2025/26 budget explicitly
state that “multi-dwelling where the property rates value for each unit does
not exceed R700 000” shall qualify for a subsidised charge of R314.68.
Nothing in the subsidy provisions indicates that the subsidised charge is
made available only where the property rate value does not exceed
R700 000 and the occupant is in receipt of a government housing subsidy.
Respondent has not, in any of the documentation emanating from it,
explained from what source (if any) it believes that it is derives the power
to impose this further limitation or what factors (if any) it has taken into
account in arriving at the decision recorded in paragraph XXX above,
16 Admittedly, contextual considerations might play a role in showing that the
words contained in a written instrument should be interpreted in a
particular fashion, but that does not allow a court to modify the meaning of
clearly worded and unambiguous provisions ( Scottish Union & National
Insurance Co Ltd v Native Recruiting Corporation Ltd 1934 AD 458 at
9
465-466; Plettenberg Bay County Club v Bitout Municipality (2006) 4
Akk SA 395 (C) at para 29, 30; Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd v
Loureiro 2013 (3) SA 407 (SCA) at para 13).
17 In the matter before me, Respondent has not filed an answering affidavit
suggesting that there are any such contextual considerations which qualify
the plain wording of the subsidisation provisions. There is also nothing
raised in the papers which indicates that the local authority, when
promulgating its 2025/26 budget, deemed it appropriate to divide low to
middle income dwellings, to whom sewage services are provided, into
various categories of need, and to extend the benefits of the subsidy only
to those already in receipt of a government funded housing grant.
18 I am therefore persuaded that the decision was based on an incorrect
interpretation of the salient provisions of the 2025/25 budget. In South
African Property Owners’ Association v Johannesburg Metropolitan
Municipality & Others 2013 (1) SA 420 (SCA) it was held that, when
budgeted rates are amended after the budget has been tabled and
advertised for comment, such amendment could not be effected unless
certain procedures had been followed, and there had been adequate
opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed amendment.
Respondent in this case has not even purported to amend the budget in
the manner provided for in the Municipal Finance Management Act but
has, instead, sought to unilaterally amend the application of the subsidy
provisions in a manner not envisaged in the budget itself. This has been
10
done without any public participation process, and the Respondent’s
conduct is clearly impermissible and irregular.
19 I am accordingly inclined to grant the review and declaratory relief sought.
The remaining issue is whether I should remit the matter to the functionary
for consideration, or issue a substitutionary order. In the ordinary course,
it is preferable to remit the matter to the functionary ( Gauteng Gambling
Board v Silverstar Developments Ltd 2005 (4) SA 67 (SCA) at para
29). There are, however, various circumstances under which the Court
will substitute its own finding. These include the position where the Court
is as well qualified as the original authority to make the decision
(Commissioner, Competition Commission v General Council of the
Bar 2002 (6) SA 606 (SCA) ; Hennie De Beer Game Lodge CC v
Waterbok Bosveld Plaas CC 2010 (5) SA 124 (CC) at para 16).
20 The case before me turns on the interpretation of subsidy provisions in a
municipal budget. As already pointed out, the provision under scrutiny is
clearly worded, the relevant facts appear from the affidavits, and this Court
is therefore in a position to interpret the applicable provisions of the
budget, have regard to the statutory framework, and to reach its own
conclusion and make its own decision on the matter.
21 I am satisfied that a case is made out for the granting of a substitutionary
order.
11
22 The order made by me, as set out in Annexure “A” hereto, is accordingly
confirmed.
A C OOSTHUIZEN
_____________________________
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG
For the Applicant:
Adv B Bhabha instructed by
Vermaak Marshall Wellbeloved Inc
For the Respondents:
No representation/No notice to
oppose
Date of hearing: 06 October 2025
Order granted: 06 October 2025
Date of judgment: 27 October 2025