Kalil N.O. and Others v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (210/2014) [2014] ZASCA 90; [2014] 3 All SA 291 (SCA); 2014 (5) SA 123 (SCA) (4 June 2014)

Kalil N.O. and Others v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (210/2014) [2014] ZASCA 90; [2014] 3 All SA 291 (SCA); 2014 (5) SA 123 (SCA) (4 June 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality failed to ensure proper public participation in the budget process as required by statute. However, the regulations under the Municipal Property Rates Act do not prescribe a maximum ratio between rates on residential and business properties, nor do they prohibit levying higher rates on business properties. The historical and statutory context supports the practice of higher rates for commercial properties. The appellants' reliance on a contrary interpretation was misplaced. The appeal was dismissed except for the costs order, which was amended in favour of the appellants due to their substantial success on the...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 90
Parties
Appellant: Paul Anthony Kalil NO; Appellant: Wilhelmina Cecilia Kalil NO; Appellant: Stephanus Abraham Cloete Bezuidenhout NO; Appellant: Broll Property Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Local Government for the Free State Province; Respondent: Executive Mayor of the City of Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager of the City of Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 2014
Case Number
210/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Free State Division, Bloemfontein
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except for the costs order, which was amended in favour of the appellants.
Judges
Mpati, Brand, Bosielo, Leach, Wallis
Legal Topics
Municipal Rates, Public Participation, Local Government Finance, Legality Principle, Rate Ratio Regulation, Constitutional Obligations
Administrative Law Land and Property Constitutional Law Municipal Rates Public Participation Local Government Finance Legality Principle Rate Ratio Regulation +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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Anthony Kalil NO

Appellant

Wilhelmina Cecilia Kalil NO

Appellant

Stephanus Abraham Cloete Bezuidenhout NO

Appellant

Broll Property Group (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Local Government for the Free State Province

Respondent

Executive Mayor of the City of Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager of the City of Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Free State Division, Bloemfontein

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality complied with statutory obligations regarding public participation before adopting the 2013/2014 budget.
  2. 2 Whether the Municipality was lawfully entitled to levy a higher rate on business properties than on residential properties.
  3. 3 Whether the determination of the rates ratio offended the principle of legality.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality failed to ensure proper public participation in the budget process as required by statute. However, the regulations under the Municipal Property Rates Act do not prescribe a maximum ratio between rates on residential and business properties, nor do they prohibit levying higher rates on business properties. The historical and statutory context supports the practice of higher rates for commercial properties. The appellants' reliance on a contrary interpretation was misplaced. The appeal was dismissed except for the costs order, which was amended in favour of the appellants due to their substantial success on the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except for the costs order, which was amended in favour of the appellants.

Orders

  • The order of the court below as to costs is set aside and replaced with: 'The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs.'
  • Subject to the amended costs order, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.