Buffalo City metro is appealing a Bhisho high court decision which overturned its introduction of new electricity rates for its customers.
This comes after the court released the reasons for its decision to overturn the new electricity rates, which caused an uproar among ratepayers.
City spokesperson, Bongani Fuzile, confirmed to the Daily Dispatch last week that the municipality was going back to court.
“The municipality is determined to go ahead with its appeal of the court decision.
“To this end, the municipality has filed its application for leave to appeal the decision.
“We are waiting for the date on which our application for leave to appeal will be heard,” said Fuzile.
In its reasons, the court said the metro’s decision to charge different electricity rates for customers or ratepayers “adversely affected” the public, who should have been informed beforehand.
Furthermore, the public were not given an opportunity to participate in the meeting at which the decision was taken.
The reasons were given by acting judge Ntsikelelo Mtshabe following his November 2025 ruling declaring the 2024 council resolution by the BCM council to adopt the charges as unconstitutional.
The metro had asked Mtshabe to provide reasons for the extempore order (oral judgment), which ruled in favour of the application brought by Schalk van De Sandt’s Friends of Schalk and the East London Ratepayers Association.
The city had sought clarity from Mtshabe before considering its next course of action.
Mtshabe had 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.
In his judicial opinion delivered on Wednesday, Mtshabe said he agreed with the applicants that the notice by the city, dated March 20 2024, did not encourage the public to participate in draft budget and electricity increases.
“The notice date of March 20 2024 provides zero information of what the meeting was going to be about. There is no agenda provided.
“The notice further failed to inform the public that the draft budget will be tabled on March 27 2024,” he said.
“In my view, the first respondent [BCM] is an organ of the state and also is the constitution’s primary agent.
“It was always its duty to do right and properly, by properly issuing a public notice that wound inform the residents and the applicant with the agenda that was to be discussed on March 27 2024.
“Further, it had a duty to invite members of the public to participate in the council meeting, which was held on May 31 2024, which it did not.
“Further, it had a duty to right and properly [invite] and [inform] the public prior to the charging of different electricity rates.
“It had a duty to inform, invite and allow the public to participate in that decision.
“In my view, the first respondent acted unlawfully, unprocedurally and unreasonably,” Mtshabe said.
Legal representative for the applicants, Brandon Blignaut, said they were delighted with the recent judgment.
“He agreed with everything we put in our papers,” he said.
“The judge was clear, concise and [followed] the law to the tee.
“I don’t know what they [BCM) are going to appeal or how they are going to appeal, so good luck to them.”
Blignaut said the applicants were ready to oppose should the city file a notice to appeal.
“We’re not going anywhere. We’re definitely going to oppose and I’m confident we’ll be successful in our opposition of the appeal,” he said.
In conclusion, Mtshabe said the applicants “made a good case” for the relief sought in the notice of motion.
“Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and the authorities which I have relied upon and the failure by the respondents to take the honourable court into confidence, I could not dismiss the application.”