Recently several Johannesburg residents complained that the City of Johannesburg increased their municipal property values (and therefore rates payments) by double-digit percentages. This was done for reasons unknown to property owners. 

The importance of asking for reasons from the City of Johannesburg (“the City”) was demonstrated in the recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgement awarded against it only days ago on 11 July 2023. This case, The Municipal Manager: The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v San Ridge Heights Rental Property (Pty) Ltd (517/2022) [2023] ZASCA 109 (11 July 2023), can be found on here: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2023/109.html.

In summary, where decisions are made by organs of state which affect you, you may request reasons for such decision. Where the reasons are given, the affected person can determine whether, based on those reasons, the decision was lawful. Where reasons are not given after requesting it, the decision is deemed to be unlawful.

The case involves a challenge to the decision of the City and/or Johannesburg Water to classify a complex in Midrand, San Ridge Heights, as a “multi dwelling”. This classification attracts a tariff of R416.47 per month per unit, as opposed to a “blocks of flats” which attracts a tariff of R250.00 per month. This decision resulted in a loss of R950 876.64 per year for the owner of San Ridge Heights.  

The owner of San Ridge Heights lodged an internal appeal in terms of section 62 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 against the decision. It also wrote a letter stating that if the owner did not receive a response to its notice of appeal, it will assume that the appeal has not been successful. No response was received to the notice of appeal or the letter. 

The owner of San Ridge Heights launched a court application to review the impugned decision and proved successfully that the City and/or Johannesburg Water did not comply with section 5 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”) in that it did not provide reasons for its decision to classify San Ridge Heights as a “multi dwelling”. The Supreme Court of Appeal stated that, “Section 33(2) of the Constitution imposes a duty on public administrators to give written reasons to those whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action. This constitutional obligation is given effect in PAJA, which sets out that any person whose rights have been materially and adversely affected by administrative action and who has not been given reasons for the decision, is entitled to demand reasons for the administrator’s decision.”

The Court found that the failure of the City and/or Johannesburg Water to give reasons is enough to find that the decision of the City was unlawful. As a result, the decision was remitted to the City and/or Johannesburg Water to make the decision afresh.  

This judgment provides guidance to residence of Johannesburg on what do regarding their property valuations. Practically they should request reasons from the City and utilise the City’s internal appeal process. Seeking legal advice for doing so is best. Depending on the City’s response or lack thereof, legal advice should be sought on whether a review application should be brought in the High Court.