Breakers Share Block Limited v Ethekwini Municipality (804/2015) [2016] ZASCA 117 (14 September 2016)

Breakers Share Block Limited v Ethekwini Municipality (804/2015) [2016] ZASCA 117 (14 September 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the notice issued by the respondent was substantively compliant with the requirements of section 49(1)(a) read with section 78(2) of the Municipal Property Rates Act. The notice contained all necessary information, including the new categorisation and usage of the property, and provided details on how and where to lodge an objection. The court found that the change in categorisation was clearly and adequately conveyed to the appellant, and there was no requirement for the change to be expressly highlighted beyond what was provided. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the notice was invalid and concluded that the procedural requirements of...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 117
Parties
Appellant: Breakers Share Block Limited; Respondent: Ethekwini Municipality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2016
Case Number
804/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division, Durban
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
Mpati, Shongwe, Swain, Mocumie, Potterill
Legal Topics
Municipal Property Rates Act, Supplementary Valuation, Adequacy of Notice, Internal Remedies
Administrative Law Land and Property Municipal Property Rates Act Supplementary Valuation Adequacy of Notice Internal Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Breakers Share Block Limited

Appellant

Ethekwini Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice issued under section 49(1)(a) read with section 78(2) of the Municipal Property Rates Act was substantively compliant.
  2. 2 Whether the change in property categorisation from 'residential' to 'business and commercial' was adequately conveyed to the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was required to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the notice issued by the respondent was substantively compliant with the requirements of section 49(1)(a) read with section 78(2) of the Municipal Property Rates Act. The notice contained all necessary information, including the new categorisation and usage of the property, and provided details on how and where to lodge an objection. The court found that the change in categorisation was clearly and adequately conveyed to the appellant, and there was no requirement for the change to be expressly highlighted beyond what was provided. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the notice was invalid and concluded that the procedural requirements of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel where employed.