Charlewood N.O. and Others v Valuation Appeal Board for the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others, Lovemore N.O. and Others v Valuation Appeal Board for the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2669/2016, 2861/2016) [2017] ZAECPEHC 56 (12 December 2017)

Charlewood N.O. and Others v Valuation Appeal Board for the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others, Lovemore N.O. and Others v Valuation Appeal Board for the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2669/2016, 2861/2016) [2017] ZAECPEHC 56 (12 December 2017)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay in bringing the review applications and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant condonation under section 9 of PAJA. On the merits, the court held that the relevant clause of the 2014/2015 Municipal Rates Policy, which provided only for categorization by dominant use, was inconsistent with sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Municipal Property Rates Act, which allow for multiple methods of categorization. The amended 2016/2017 policy correctly aligned with the Act. The properties, having both agricultural and commercial uses, were lawfully categorized as 'multi-purpose other' and not solely...

Citation
[2017] ZAECPEHC 56
Parties
Applicant: Michael Godfrey Moreton Charlewood N.O.; Applicant: Charles Godfrey Charlewood N.O.; Applicant: Robert Bernard Spanjaard N.O.; Applicant: Christopher Baillie Lovemore N.O.; Applicant: Robert Baillie Lovemore N.O.; Applicant: Ellen Lovemore N.O.; Respondent: The Valuation Appeal Board for the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: The Chairman of the Valuation Appeal Board, Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: The Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2017
Case Number
2669/2016, 2861/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Counter Application
Outcome
Both review applications are dismissed with costs. Declaratory relief is granted in favour of the respondents regarding the inconsistency of the 2014/2015 Municipal Rates Policy clause.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Municipal Property Rates Act, Property Categorization, Dominant Use, Multi Purpose Property, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Administrative Law Land and Property Municipal Property Rates Act Property Categorization Dominant Use Multi Purpose Property Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Godfrey Moreton Charlewood N.O.

Applicant

Charles Godfrey Charlewood N.O.

Applicant

Robert Bernard Spanjaard N.O.

Applicant

Christopher Baillie Lovemore N.O.

Applicant

Robert Baillie Lovemore N.O.

Applicant

Ellen Lovemore N.O.

Applicant

The Valuation Appeal Board for the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

The Chairman of the Valuation Appeal Board, Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

The Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decisions of the Valuation Appeal Board categorizing the properties as 'multi-purpose other' were lawful and correct.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to have the properties categorized as 'agricultural purposes only'.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the review applications should be condoned under section 9 of PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay in bringing the review applications and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant condonation under section 9 of PAJA. On the merits, the court held that the relevant clause of the 2014/2015 Municipal Rates Policy, which provided only for categorization by dominant use, was inconsistent with sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Municipal Property Rates Act, which allow for multiple methods of categorization. The amended 2016/2017 policy correctly aligned with the Act. The properties, having both agricultural and commercial uses, were lawfully categorized as 'multi-purpose other' and not solely...

Court Disposition

Both review applications are dismissed with costs. Declaratory relief is granted in favour of the respondents regarding the inconsistency of the 2014/2015 Municipal Rates Policy clause.

Orders

  • The application for review under case number 2669/2016 is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for review under case number 2861/2016 is dismissed with costs.