MyPE

Community Business Directory, Event Listings, News and Views from Gqeberha, Nelson Mandela Bay

Not much chance for success from Rates Boycott

By

Hello Alan

I am a Metro resident and ratepayer and, as such, have total empathy with the anger and frustration felt by the residents intent on withholding rates. Have a look at the two attached judgments; both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court have found AGAINST rates boycotters.

Plus, in all the cases I know of, not much has changed (if anything). The boycott will not hit where any official will hurt. Action is absolutely necessary, but I would strongly caution that a boycott will not only be illegal, but ineffective.

Best regards

Annette Lovemore

See: NMBMM Rates Dispute – Take Action HERE for more clarity on the above.

Editor – The two attached judgements refer to:

  1. THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Case no: 173/11. In the matter between: OLGA RADEMAN (Appellant) and MOQHAKA MUNICIPALITY (First Respondent), M A MOKGOSI (Second Respondent), M V DUMA (Third Respondent) JIMMY MASWANGANYI (Fourth Respondent) and  RUDOLPH MEYER (Fifth Respondent).
  2. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Case CCT 41/12, [2013] ZACC 11. In the matter between: OLGA RADEMAN (Appellant) and MOQHAKA MUNICIPALITY (First Respondent), M A MOKGOSI (Second Respondent), M V DUMA (Third Respondent) JIMMY MASWANGANYI (Fourth Respondent) and  RUDOLPH MEYER (Fifth Respondent). Heard on 5 February 2013 and edcided on 26 April 2013.

Both deal with the powers of a municipality to discontinue supply of electricity to defaulters who refuse to pay rates and taxes and both found that the municipality in question was justified in disconnecting appellant’s electricity supply without a court order.

Essentially what happened was the following:

  1. On 17 August 2009, the municipality disconnected the electricity supply to the appellant (Olga Rademan) because of her failure to pay. This was done without any court order. The appellant successfully launched an urgent for the restoration of her electricity supply which was granted by the magistrates’ court, Kroonstad. The appeal against this order by the first respondent to the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein was successful. The appeal to the appeal court was with the leave of the high court.
  2. Olga Rademan together with other residents of the municipality, are members of the Moqhaka Ratepayers and Residents Association. This is an organisation which comprised residents who claimed to be unhappy with the municipal services rendered by the municipality. As a means of getting the respondent to attend to their various complaints, which included alleged poor service delivery, they decided to withhold payments of their rates and taxes. It is not clear from the papers when they stopped their payments. However, they continued to pay for their other municipal services like water and sanitation, electricity and refuse removal. Notwithstanding various demands for payment, the appellant persisted in her refusal to pay taxes and levies. Inevitably, this impasse culminated in the first respondent discontinuing any further supply of electricity to her. Hence this case.
  3. The above appeal was dismissed with costs.
  4. Olga Rademan then took the case to the Constitutional Court asking for leave to appeal against the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision.
  5. The constitutional Court decreed thus; “There is, on the case before us, no constitutional challenge to the termination of municipal services, including electricity, for non-payment of rates in accordance with the Systems Act and the municipal by-laws.36 Section 21(5) of the ERA is simply not applicable here.”
The following two tabs change content below.

Port Elizabethan

This author is a 'catch-all' for occasional articles and letters written to MyPE. The Author of each article can be found in the signature at the bottom of each individual article.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. The NMBRA are well aware of these cases and have taken legal advice on how to proceed. The action they are taking is within the law and is defendable. Also please look at examples of where similar action has been taken and succeeded – Locally you can look at Port Alfred, also look at Ramsgate. President has been set. If people bother to stand together – and this time it really looks like the ratepayers of PE are standing up in HUGE numbers to be counted, then PE ratepayers CAN take control of how their money is spent in this Metro. All it takes if enough people to say ‘enough’ and this abuse will stop.

  2. Annette are you talking on behalf of the DA and therefore trying to protect your own interests should you take over the metro? Either way you are very clearly talking from a position of ignorance and without thinking. At least you should have called someone to verify the actual processes before assuming and being critical… Typical politician?

  3. From the NMBRA:

    NMB Ratepayers Association: Rates Witholding Action.

    We at the NMBRA were criticised because we were not taking action sooner
    on behalf of our members and ratepayers in general. We addressed the
    reasons why during our last public meeting held on August 6th, where we
    explained that we were waiting specifically for the outcome of the
    Rademan case.

    In that ruling, the withholding of rates (non-payment of rates) was
    deemed illegal and the municipality allowed to implement credit control
    measures as it sees fit. I would like to stress that our definition of
    withholding does NOT mean not paying your dues. The outcome of the
    Rademan case does not mean that that outcome is now law.

    Our aim is for ratepayers to continue to pay their accounts, but to pay
    them into a trust account (details of which to be available soon). Once
    the ratepayers control the finances, they can force proper governance.
    We are now formulating a plan of action that allows us to apply pressure
    on the municipality in order to force proper and legal administration of
    municipal responsibilities.

    It is imperative to add that in the Rademan case, the ConCourt also took
    cognisance of the fact that the consumer/ratepayers must have the right
    to recourse and that is why in the same judgement, the court ruled that
    a ratepayer does not have to pay for a service that they didn’t receive.
    We are receiving sound legal advice every step of the way. We have top
    attorneys working for us, ensuring that first and foremost, we do not
    put our members and ratepayers of this metro in harms way.

    Therefore our action is 100% within the law that is there to protect us
    as ratepayers. It is important to note that in order for this action to
    be successful, total support from all the ratepayers is crucial. To
    date, we have received dispute forms for over 700 properties. Anyone who
    has concerns or questions is welcome to contact us for details on our
    action.

    Ill-informed or incomplete opinions, serving to deprive the ratepayers
    of their rights as guaranteed under the constitution will be vigorously
    contested. The dispute form currently being distributed is intended to
    send the strongest message to ALL politicians that we will no longer
    tolerate mismanagement, corruption and/or political interference in the
    administration of this Metro. The NMB Ratepayers Association was
    established with a single agenda: To protect the interests of all
    ratepayers in this Metro-pole.

    Regards

    Nelson Mandela Bay Ratepayers Association

    nmbratepayersoffice@gmail.com