It sounds like a trivial question: who should provide the black plastic bags in which household refuse is placed for collection?
In Buffalo City Metro, however, this small issue raises important questions about municipal service delivery, tariffs, equality and accountability.
The issue concerns an apartment block in KuGompo City. Its residents’ black bags of domestic refuse is collected every Thursday from the roadside by BCM refuse-removal trucks.
In practical terms, this appears to be the same essential service provided to individual households elsewhere on the same street.
There is, however, one difference: these apartment residents presently have to provide their own black bags.
That raises a simple question: what exactly are residents paying for?
The municipal charge: On the rates notices for two properties examined during this investigation, the relevant charge is: “Refuse domestic — R401.01.”
BCM’s 2025/2026 tariff book places domestic refuse under “Removal and disposal of domestic refuse” and provides for door-to-door collection.
Significantly, it describes weekly removal of domestic refuse from “any private dwelling or flat”, subject to specified volume limits.
The reference to a flat is important. The domestic refuse service is not confined to detached houses.
The tariff book also distinguishes door-to-door collection from container collection. For the latter, it states that no bags will be provided.
It is, therefore, important to establish which collection category applies to apartment blocks and what rule determines whether its residents receive municipal bags.
BCM’s own website provides significant evidence. Its solid waste management department lists among its functions: “Refuse bags distribution to households is also done.”
Refuse bag distribution is therefore a function which BCM itself recognises as part of its waste-management operations.
There is further evidence that BCM purchases bags for municipal purposes.
In 2026, it advertised a tender for the supply and delivery of refuse bags to BCM for a period of three years.
This does not prove that every household is legally entitled to free bags. That would require examination of the applicable policy and municipal resolutions.
It does establish that BCM distributes refuse bags to households and purchases them for municipal purposes.
The question is what criteria determines who receives them.
Why this case matters?
The residents of the apartment block are not asking for a special refuse-removal service.
Their domestic refuse is collected weekly by BCM’s refuse-removal trucks.
If the municipality treats these residents differently, there should be an identifiable basis for doing so.
There may be one: BCM might classify an apartment development differently for waste-management purposes.
But that distinction needs to be established.
The issue is not whether every property must receive exactly the same service.
Municipalities necessarily have different arrangements for houses, flats, businesses and other premises.
The issue is whether residents receiving essentially the same domestic refuse-removal service are being treated differently on a lawful, rational and transparent basis.
The dispute must also be viewed against SA’s constitutional framework.
Section 152 of the Constitution identifies among the objectives of local government the provision of democratic and accountable government, sustainable services and a safe and healthy environment.
Section 153 requires municipalities to give priority to the basic needs of their communities.
The Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 is particularly relevant.
Section 73 requires municipalities to prioritise basic community needs and ensure access to at least the minimum level of basic municipal services.
It also requires services to be equitable and accessible and provided efficiently and effectively.
Section 74, concerning municipal tariff policies, incorporates the principle that users of municipal services should be treated equitably in the application of tariffs.
These provisions do not automatically establish a legal entitlement to free refuse bags.
They do, however, make the basis for differential treatment a legitimate issue.
What does R401.01 cover? This may be the central question.
BCM describes the service as “Removal and disposal of domestic refuse” and expressly includes a private dwelling or flat in its door-to-door category.
The black bag is the means by which household refuse is presented for collection.
There is, therefore, a reasonable argument that the bag forms part of the practical delivery of the refuse-removal service.
That should not be overstated. The evidence presently available does not conclusively establish that the R401.01 charge legally includes the cost of every refuse bag used by every resident.
The municipality should therefore identify the rule governing the matter.
BCM should provide a clear explanation of:
- Its current policy governing domestic refuse-bag distribution;
- Eligibility criteria and quantity of bags supplied;
- Rules applicable to flats and sectional-title developments;
- Tariff provision governing domestic refuse removal; and
- Legal or policy basis upon which apartment block residents must provide their own bags.
If these residents belong to a different service category, BCM should identify it and explain why.
If residents are excluded under a particular policy, that policy should be available to them.
If there is no meaningful distinction between an apartment block and other residential properties receiving the domestic door-to-door service, the municipality should explain the different treatment.
Local government is experienced by citizens through everyday services such as refuse collection.
Here, BCM’s own information establishes that it charges residents for domestic refuse removal; that its tariff expressly includes a private dwelling or flat; that its solid waste management department distributes refuse bags to households; and that it purchases bags for municipal purposes.
The Municipal Systems Act requires municipal services to be equitable and accessible and requires equitable treatment in the application of municipal tariffs.
Against that background, the position at apartment blocks deserves a clear explanation.
BCM may have a perfectly lawful reason for requiring these residents to buy their own bags.
If so, it should be straightforward to demonstrate.
If not, the municipality has an opportunity to correct a seemingly anomalous practice.
The black refuse bag may be a small item, but the principle behind it is not.
When a municipality charges residents for a service, citizens are entitled to know what that service includes, what rules govern it, and why apparently similar residents are sometimes treated differently.
That is the essence of accountable local government.
Bill Gould is a law student at UFH and a social commentator on service delivery issues.
