Central University of Technology, Free State and Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (A12/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 340 (24 August 2023)

Central University of Technology, Free State and Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (A12/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 340 (24 August 2023)

The court found that the second respondent failed to comply with section 49(1)(c) of the MPRA by not serving the required notice and extract of the valuation roll on the applicant. This procedural failure rendered the valuation process and subsequent levying of rates unlawful and unenforceable against the applicant. The categorisation of the applicant's properties as 'business' was irrational and inequitable, given their status as state-owned and used for public benefit. The respondents' reliance on internal remedies and PAJA was misplaced, as the impugned decisions were not administrative actions subject to PAJA but rather subject to legality review. The valuation of erf 26454 was found...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 340
Parties
Applicant: Central University of Technology, Free State; Respondent: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: The Municipal Manager: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: The Municipal Valuer: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2023
Case Number
A12/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The impugned decisions and rates policies are declared unlawful and set aside. The municipality is directed to conduct a supplementary valuation and reconsider its rates policies.
Judges
Mhlambi, Opperman
Legal Topics
Municipal Property Rates Act, Valuation Rolls, Legality Review, Failure to Serve Notice, Categorisation of Properties, Unlawful Levying of Rates
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Municipal Property Rates Act Valuation Rolls Legality Review Failure to Serve Notice Categorisation of Properties +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central University of Technology, Free State

Applicant

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

The Municipal Manager: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

The Municipal Valuer: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent lawfully served notice and an extract of the valuation roll on the applicant as required by section 49(1)(c) of the MPRA.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's decisions to levy rates and categorise the applicant's properties were lawful and rational under the MPRA.
  3. 3 Whether the valuation and categorisation of the applicant's properties, specifically erf 26454, complied with statutory and constitutional requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent failed to comply with section 49(1)(c) of the MPRA by not serving the required notice and extract of the valuation roll on the applicant. This procedural failure rendered the valuation process and subsequent levying of rates unlawful and unenforceable against the applicant. The categorisation of the applicant's properties as 'business' was irrational and inequitable, given their status as state-owned and used for public benefit. The respondents' reliance on internal remedies and PAJA was misplaced, as the impugned decisions were not administrative actions subject to PAJA but rather subject to legality review. The valuation of erf 26454 was found...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The impugned decisions and rates policies are declared unlawful and set aside. The municipality is directed to conduct a supplementary valuation and reconsider its rates policies.

Orders

  • The second respondent's failure to serve notice and extract of the valuation roll on the applicant is declared unlawful.
  • The first respondent's decisions to levy rates and determine cent in the rand as rates on the applicant's properties are declared unlawful and set aside.