By Antoinette Slabbert.
The Western Cape High Court on 30 April ruled in favour of the South African Association of Property Owners (Sapoa) and AfriForum, declaring the City of Cape Town’s (CoCT) property value-based fixed charges for cleaning levy and water and sanitation unlawful, setting them aside from 30 June 2026.
This vindicates not only the two applicants but also a large group of residents who objected to the tariffs, including the Cape Town Collective Ratepayers’ Association (CTCRA) and South Africa First Forum, which joined the action as friends of the court, and the Good Party, which intervened.
This is expected to send the city back to the drawing board regarding its draft 2026/27 budget, which was drafted on the same principles.
If the city, however, appeals the judgment delivered by three senior judges, the order may be suspended pending the appeal’s outcome.
The ruling further casts doubt on Mangaung Metro, which, like Cape Town, based its waste removal charges for the coming financial year on the value of the relevant property.
Both the CoCT and Mangaung budgets are still in draft form, but any material changes at this stage may require additional public participation.
The court also dismissed the CoCT’s counter-applications to set aside a section in the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act that restricts it from structuring its tariffs in this way.
The city has been ordered to pay the costs of the applicants and the Good Party.
Neil Gopal, the CEO of Sapoa, said in response to the judgment that “Sapoa has found no joy in litigating against the City of Cape Town, with whom it enjoys a very warm relationship.”
“Having said that, however, Sapoa is happy that it was vindicated in its views that the impugned tariffs are unlawful, as it had argued all along.”
“Sapoa looks forward to constructive consultation with the city in order to arrive at a lawful budget for the next financial year, which meets the needs of both the city and its residents.”
He said Sapoa has, however, “noted with concern the city’s previous indications that, should the court find against it, it will appeal the matter all the way to the Constitutional Court.
“Sapoa urges the city not to waste further taxpayer money, to accept the court’s well-reasoned judgment, and to instead focus its attention on delivering a lawful budget for 2026/27.
“Sapoa also urges other municipalities in the country to heed this judgment, and to carefully consider any new tariffs or charges that it may wish to implement.”
AfriForum’s Jurie Ferreira also welcomed the ruling, saying it confirms that tariffs must be structured in a fair, transparent and legally compliant manner with a clear link to actual service consumption.
He said the ruling is not only significant to Cape Town but also guides other municipalities nationwide.
Activist group Stop City of Cape Town’s Sandra Dickson also welcomed the ruling. It said it is a major overdue relief for ratepayers who have been buckling under their increased municipal bills for more than a year now.
“The city refused to listen to anyone, and now it was left to the court to halt their terror tariff reign in Cape Town.”
Dickson said the City of Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis has now been checked on his overambitious plans for the city, which saw the city’s capital plan double in four years, leaving residents to pay for it.
“The far-above-inflation tariff increases and the continuous addition of revenue streams to increase the city’s revenue to pay for the mayor’s plans have now been halted, and residents can express a sigh of relief.”
The city said in a statement it will analyse the judgment and consider its options for appeal. It confirmed that the order will be suspended should the city proceed with an appeal.
“In considering its legal options, the city will also model the ruling’s potential impact on ratepayers, especially lower and middle-income households. The ruling does not change the current 2025/26 tariff structure and budget, which remain lawful and applicable until 30 June 2026,” it stated.
Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis is sticking to his guns on the matter. “It remains my firm belief that Cape Town cannot truly work unless it works for everyone, “he said.
“Cross-subsidising – where the better off among us help to fund services for the less fortunate – is the most equitable and sustainable way to ensure a working city of hope for all.
“The point of using property values to determine fixed charges is to protect lower and middle-income homes. The only alternative to this is for everyone to pay a flat charge, regardless of whether they are low-income or affluent.”
“The implication of today’s ruling might be that fixed charges go up for many families and go down for more affluent families. That is the perverse implication of this ruling, and why we will have to carefully consider how best to protect middle- and lower-income families going forward.”
“The only other option would be to cut our infrastructure budget. I see already that the organisation StopCOCT is arguing for precisely that. This would lead to a less functional city with less basic dignity for residents – a terrible and indefensible implication.”
“We do not agree with this course of action at all. Investing in infrastructure is the core of what makes a city work for all, and a growing economy.”
The city said the implication of the ruling – if not appealed – is that city-wide cleaning charges are moved back into the property rates account rather than being charged as a tariff, which would entail an increase to the proposed rate-in-rand.
“As it stands, the city has tabled a 10.2% reduction in the rate-in-rand in the draft 2026/27 budget.
“Importantly, the city-wide cleaning charge does not raise new revenue, and the service still requires funding notwithstanding the ruling on how it is charged for. Residents have always contributed to this service, inter alia, via electricity purchases.”
“From 2025/26, city-wide cleaning was simply removed from electricity, lowering prices and displayed separately on the monthly bill. In this way, waste management became a self-funding service with ring-fenced revenue.”