Liebenberg NO and Others v Bergrivier Municipality (737/2011) [2012] ZASCA 153; [2012] 4 All SA 626 (SCA) (1 October 2012)

Liebenberg NO and Others v Bergrivier Municipality (737/2011) [2012] ZASCA 153; [2012] 4 All SA 626 (SCA) (1 October 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that s 10G(7) of the Local Government Transition Act remained operative until 2011 due to the transitional provisions in the Finance Act and the Rates Act. The Municipality was empowered to levy rates under s 10G(7) throughout the relevant period, and the procedures for levying rates were governed by the Finance Act after its commencement. The court found that the Municipality substantially complied with the statutory requirements for notice, objection, and public participation, and that any administrative shortcomings did not invalidate the rates. The rates imposed in each financial year from 2002/2003 to 2008/2009 were lawfully imposed, and the farm...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 153
Parties
Appellant: Jacobus Johannes Liebenberg NO and 86 Others; Respondent: Bergrivier Municipality; Amicus: Minister for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2012
Case Number
737/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court (cape Town), Including Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal upheld; high court orders set aside and replaced with orders confirming lawfulness of rates and liability of farm owners to pay amounts owed.
Judges
Nugent, Lewis, Bosielo, Theron, Wallis
Legal Topics
Municipal Rates, Local Government Transition Act, Substantial Compliance, Public Participation, Constitutional Powers of Municipalities, Retrospective Rating
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Municipal Rates Local Government Transition Act Substantial Compliance Public Participation Constitutional Powers of Municipalities +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Johannes Liebenberg NO and 86 Others

Appellant

Bergrivier Municipality

Respondent

Minister for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape

Amicus

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court (cape Town), Including Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rates imposed by Bergrivier Municipality on rural landowners from 2002 to 2009 were lawfully imposed under the relevant statutes.
  2. 2 Whether s 10G(7) of the Local Government Transition Act remained operative after the enactment of the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Municipality complied with statutory requirements for public notice, objection, and promulgation in each relevant financial year.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that s 10G(7) of the Local Government Transition Act remained operative until 2011 due to the transitional provisions in the Finance Act and the Rates Act. The Municipality was empowered to levy rates under s 10G(7) throughout the relevant period, and the procedures for levying rates were governed by the Finance Act after its commencement. The court found that the Municipality substantially complied with the statutory requirements for notice, objection, and public participation, and that any administrative shortcomings did not invalidate the rates. The rates imposed in each financial year from 2002/2003 to 2008/2009 were lawfully imposed, and the farm...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal upheld; high court orders set aside and replaced with orders confirming lawfulness of rates and liability of farm owners to pay amounts owed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel, to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally.
  • The cross appeal succeeds with costs, including those of two counsel. Those costs and the costs of the application for leave to cross appeal in the high court are to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally.