Buffalo City Metro residents have won a big victory in their battle against the city’s controversial electricity tariff hikes imposed last year.
The Bhisho High Court has ruled in favour of an application brought against the city by various ratepayers’ associations which teamed up with nonprofit organisation Friends of Schalk Movement.
A judgment handed down by acting judge Ntsikelelo Mtshabe on Thursday ordered that the city’s decision to implement and apply a basic charge to municipal accounts be reviewed and set aside.
It further ordered that a resolution by the metro’s council in May 2024, which adopted the basic charge, was invalid and inconsistent with the constitution.
The municipality, mayor Princess Faku and energy regulator Nersa, cited as the respondents in the case, were ordered to begin a public participation process in respect of the charge.
Ratepayers were represented by municipal disputes expert attorney Brandon Blignaut and advocate Brendan Tarr from MKB Attorneys.
Court proceedings were delayed as the city wanted to settle the matter out of court, but legal counsel instructed by the ratepayers rejected attempts to secure further postponements.
Speaking after the judgment, Blignaut said that from Friday, the metro could no longer apply the basic electricity service charge.
“Moving forward, [in the] 2026/2027 financial year, they need to follow a proper public participation process where they notify people of the amounts.”
In 2024, Nersa approved BCM’s application to charge prepaid customers a “cost of supply” rate of R376 for infrastructure maintenance, while postpaid users had their existing charge increased to R660.
City authorities increased the power tariff by 15.31% and introduced a new monthly electricity network and service charge, ranging from R370 for people with prepaid meters to R660 for credit metering account (postpaid) clients.
Friends of Schalk asked the court to review and set aside the decision to implement and apply a basic electricity charge to municipal accounts on the grounds that it was unlawful in terms of the constitutional principle of legality.
Responding to the judgment, Schalk van der Sandt said he was “extremely” grateful to the justice system.
“I’m very happy that they have ruled in our favour,” he said.
“They have ordered the municipality to do a new [public participation process] now, and to get the community involved in all these decisions before they start making any decisions.
“Our case was basically against the basic service charges, and then also what is the differentiation between why we are charging certain people certain items and something that other people don’t understand.
“Those were our main concerns. I am extremely happy with the outcome.
Beacon Bay Ratepayers" Association chair Scott Roebert said it was delighted with the ruling.
“This was because of so many groups of people putting their shoulders to the wheel to push this matter over the line.
“It shows how much we can achieve when we all work together as one, and I want to call on all our communities to keep communication channels open so that we all speak one voice.”
Roebert said the association was disappointed that BCM had challenged the application.
“They wasted so much time and expense on a matter they couldn’t win.
“Let this be a lesson that we as ratepayers will not be bullied into accepting their terms without proper consultation,” he said.
“The Municipal Systems Act outlines and defines the roles and responsibilities of each municipal member, and we expect those guidelines to be followed when carrying out duties.
“We will be consulting with the lawyers to understand what this actually means and what the next steps will be in order to make sure this victory is felt by the people.”
In previous court papers, municipal manager Mxolisi Yawa detailed the process that culminated in the billing decision.
He said that on March 20 2024, a notice of a council meeting was advertised in the Daily Dispatch.
At the meeting, on March 27, the draft revised 2024/2025 integrated development plan (IDP), medium-term revenue and expenditure framework, draft 2024/2025 built environment performance plan and the catalytic land development programmes were tabled.
The following month, a public notice on the tabling of these plans was advertised.
The notice described where people could inspect the plans and comment. It also said the documents were available on the municipal website and provided details of the website.
On May 30, a notice of a special virtual council meeting on May 31 was advertised. Community members could get a live update of the proceedings from the municipal website.
The next day, the revised 2024/2025 IDP, medium-term budget, 2024/2025 built environment plan and the catalytic land development programmes — including the tariffs — were tabled and approved by council.
On June 7 2024, an advert appeared listing the approved tariff increases and their implementation date of July 1.
On June 12, another advert appeared, notifying people where they could access details of the tariff approvals and how they could comment.
On July 25, at the request of the ratepayers’ associations, Faku held community meetings.
In court papers, Yawa denied allegations that the metro had behaved unlawfully, unreasonably and that its actions were procedurally unfair, challenging the applicants to provide proof.
He denied that there had been a lack of consultation with the public.
BCM DA councillor Frederick Pohl said he expected the city to appeal against the judgment.
Late on Thursday afternoon, the metro responded, saying that it should be noted that judge Mtshabe had provided no reasons for the ruling.
“Consequently, BCM has instructed its attorneys of record to formally request the reasons from the acting judge.
“[BCM] will only be in a position to consider its next course of action once the reasons for the extempore order [oral decision made immediately after a hearing] have been received and fully assessed.”
Daily Dispatch
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.