INTRODUCTION

In a significant judgment handed down by the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, Johannesburg, the Court ruled in favour of the applicant, Ms. Lampe, against the City of Johannesburg. The matter concerned the City’s imposition of enhanced property rates on the basis that Ms. Lampe’s property was allegedly being used illegally. The Court found the City’s conduct to be unlawful and ordered the reversal of all such charges dating back to July 2019.

FACTS

Ms. Lampe had operated a callanetics studio from her property since 1984 under a licence issued by the Randburg Town Council. In 2017, the City of Johannesburg, as the successor to the Randburg Town Council, issued a notice alleging unauthorised use of the property in contravention of the Randburg Town Planning Scheme, 1976. Despite Ms. Lampe’s representations and evidence of her longstanding licence, the City ignored her correspondence and, in July 2019, began levying additional rates and taxes on the basis of alleged illegal use.

The applicant’s municipal account was increased by approximately R9,400 per month. When she refused to pay, the City disconnected her electricity supply and instituted legal proceedings to recover the outstanding amounts. Although her consent use application was eventually approved in October 2020, the City continued to levy enhanced rates and attempted further disconnections.

DISCUSSION ON LAW

The central legal issue was whether the City was entitled to levy penalty charges on the basis that the property was being used illegally between July 2019 and October 2020. The City conceded that charges post-October 2020 were unlawful but maintained that prior charges were valid due to the absence of formal consent under the Town Planning Scheme.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that the original licence issued by the Randburg Town Council constituted valid and binding consent. The Court found it implausible that a business licence would be issued without the necessary planning approval. It further held that the City, as the successor in law, was bound by the Randburg Town Council’s prior approvals.

The Court also criticised the City’s bureaucratic reasoning that consent from the health department did not equate to planning consent, noting that municipal departments are not “separate institutions” and must act cohesively. Citing Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road v City of Johannesburg, the Court emphasised that municipal officials must not take “insulated decisions” in respect of their duties.

COURT’S FINDING

The Court declared the City’s conduct in levying rates based on alleged illegal use to be unlawful. It ordered the City to:

• Reverse all charges levied since 1 July 2019 on the basis of illegal use;
• Cease further levies on that basis;
• Furnish a recalculated municipal account within 30 days; and
• Refrain from terminating services due to non-payment of the disputed charges.

Costs were awarded on an attorney-and-client scale due to the City’s high-handed and unresponsive conduct throughout the dispute.

CONCLUSION

This judgment underscores the importance of lawful administrative action and the binding nature of historical municipal approvals. It serves as a cautionary tale for municipalities seeking to impose penalties without proper legal foundation and highlights the judiciary’s willingness to protect ratepayers from arbitrary and unjustified municipal conduct.