Cape Town Ratepayers back SAPOA court case over municipal bill charges

The Cape Town Collective Ratepayers’ Association (CTCRA) says it welcomes a court case brought by the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) against the City of Cape Town over how it calculates certain charges on municipal bills.

SAPOA has taken the City to the Western Cape High Court, arguing that linking fixed water and sewage charges to property value is unlawful - a view shared by the CTCRA, a newly forming body made up of 57 civic and ratepayer associations across Cape Town.

Its interim chair is Noordhoek Ratepayers’ Association chairperson Bas Zuidberg.

In response to SAPOA’s legal challenge, Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis said in a statement that the association was acting to protect the profits of the country’s wealthiest property owners at the expense of ordinary Capetonians.

“SAPOA represents the largest and wealthiest commercial property owners – primarily shopping mall owners – who have long benefited from the success of Cape Town,” said Mr Hill-Lewis.

“Yet now they argue that they should contribute the same to infrastructure costs as low-income households, which would be patently unfair.”

He said SAPOA’s attempt to halt the City’s 2025/26 budget amounted to a defence of regressive taxation.

“The effect would be for ordinary families to effectively subsidise the richest property owners.”

The City replaced the former ‘pipe levy’, which had charged households equally based on pipe size, with a more equitable system linking fixed charges to property value.

“It’s simply unsustainable for a R50 million home and a R500 000 home to make the same fixed contribution,” Mr Hill-Lewis said.

He argued that fixed charges based on property value are both lawful and fair, and necessary to fund the City’s R40 billion infrastructure programme over the next three years.

“Cross-subsidisation is the only sustainable way to ensure a working city of hope for all. Without it, lower-income households bear a much greater burden relative to their means.”

He added that although the City had engaged extensively with SAPOA, the association had failed to offer a workable alternative.

In a statement, the CTCRA said the City’s approach to charging residents contravenes national legislation governing municipal revenue and services.

The cleaning charge, for instance, was cited as an example of a general cost, comparable to road repairs or emergency services, that should be covered by property rates and not billed as a separate fee tied to property value.

The CTCRA warned that if the issue is left unchallenged, other municipalities may adopt similar practices.

“This isn’t just about Cape Town. It’s about fairness and following the Constitution,” the association said.

The group confirmed that the billing issue affects both business and residential property owners. It is considering applying to the court as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) to support SAPOA’s legal arguments.

The association also criticised Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis for what it described as a deflection from the legal substance of the case.

The mayor hasn’t addressed the actual legal points raised. Instead, he’s tried to frame the issue as one group of residents versus another,” said Mr Zuidberg.

They noted that many of those who objected to the City’s latest budget were ordinary middle-class residents, not wealthy property owners.

“We’re talking about retired people, single parents and families living month-to-month. Just because they own homes doesn't mean they can afford hundreds of rands more each month."

The CTCRA argued that equating property value with affordability is misleading and that the City should not assume the right to determine who can or can’t afford to pay more.

In response to the City’s claim that its budget includes mitigation measures to protect vulnerable households, the association said this was irrelevant if the charges themselves are unlawful.

It also rejected the City’s defence of its policies as a matter of tax fairness.

“Service charges aren’t taxes. They’re fees for services delivered. They’re not meant to be progressive or regressive,” said Mr Zuidberg.

CTCRA said it and other civic groups had suggested alternatives, such as boosting municipal efficiency or introducing a tourist overnight tax, but these proposals were ignored.

“This court case is about the law - and the City must follow it,” the association said.