Latest opinion on art. 102 of the Municipal Systems Act

Viewing Stadiums SRA Replying Affidavit.dat
Viewing Stadiums SRA founding affidavit.doc
Rates and Taxes SRA Founding Affidavit.doc
Rates and Taxes SRA Suppl Affidavit.doc

IN RE: THE STELLENBOSCH RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION’S QUERIES RELATING TO SECTION 102 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT: MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS ACT 32 OF 2000 LEGAL MEMORANDUM

Private and Confidential
From:
Adv Lise Smit
3rd Floor Bank Chambers, Cape Town
Tel: 021 426 4004
Cell: 083 748 6248

To:
Louréz Swart
Loretta Hayward Attorneys
1st Floor, Good Hope Building
23 Plein Street, Stellenbosch

And to:
Mr André van der Walt
The Stellenbosch Ratepayers’ Association

INTRODUCTION
1. Section 102 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (“the MSA”) provides as follows:
   1. A municipality may-
      1. consolidate any separate accounts of persons liable for payments to the municipality;
      2. credit a payment by such a person against any account of that person; and
      3. implement any of the debt collection and credit control measures provided for in this Chapter in relation to any arrears on any of the accounts of such a person.
   2. Subsection (1) does not apply where there is a dispute between the municipality and a person referred to in that subsection concerning any specific amount claimed by the municipality from that person.
   3. A municipality must provide an owner of a property in its jurisdiction with copies of accounts sent to the occupier of the property for municipal services supplied to such a property if the owner requests such accounts in writing from the municipality concerned.
2. The client is the Stellenbosch Ratepayers’ Association.
3. I was asked to provide an opinion on the following questions:
   1. Which individuals are included in the definition of “a person” referred to in the section? Specifically, what is the applicability of section 102 to tax payers, ratepayers, residents and owners?
   2. Which rights and remedies are created for the persons referred to in section 102?
   3. Should it be recommended to ratepayers to continue paying their previous rate amounts (adding a certain percentage for inflation) whilst instituting a dispute regarding the amount of rates they have to pay?
4. I was provided with the following documentation:
   1. The Stellenbosch Municipality’s draft Rates Policy of March 2009, which was purportedly adopted at a meeting of 28 May 2009.
   2. The Agenda of a meeting of the Stellenbosch Municipal Council of 28 May 2009.
   3. The draft by-laws purported to be adopted at the meeting of 28 May 2009. These by-laws seem to aim at giving effect to both the Rates Policy and the Credit Control and Debt Recovery Policy.
   4. The Stellenbosch Municipality’s 2008 Credit Control and Debt Recovery Policy (it is not clear from the documents before me whether this was brought into effect by valid by-laws).
   5. The Stellenbosch Municipality’s draft budget, as tabled at a meeting of the Council on 26 March 2009 (“the draft budget”).
THE DETERMINATION OF RATE AMOUNTS
5. The determination of rate amounts is regulated by the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004 (“the MPRA”).
6. Section 11 of the MPRA provides that a rate levied by a municipality on property must be an amount in the Rand on the market value of the property (with certain exceptions).
Determination of the market value
7. The market value of each property is contained in a valuation roll. Section 30 of the MPRA requires the municipality to prepare a valuation roll by valuing all rateable properties during a general valuation. Section 31(2)(a) requires that the general valuation must reflect the market value of properties determined in accordance with market conditions which applied as at the date of valuation.
8. The valuation roll stays valid for a maximum period of four years, unless the MEC for local government extend the period of validity to five years in terms of section 32(2) of the MPRA.
9. In order to value properties the municipality must designate municipal valuers in terms of section 33 of the MPRA.
10. Section 45 of the MPRA deals with valuation and provides as follows:
    1. Property must be valued in accordance with generally recognised valuation practices, methods and standards, and the provisions of this Act.
    2. For the purposes of subsection (1)-
       1. physical inspection of the property to be valued is optional; and
       2. comparative, analytical and other systems or techniques may be used, including aerial photography and computer-assisted mass appraisal systems or techniques, taking into account changes in technology and valuation systems and techniques.
    3. 1. If the available market-related data of any category of rateable property is not sufficient for the proper application of subsections (1) and (2), such property may be valued in accordance with any mass valuation system or technique approved by the municipality concerned, after having considered any recommendations of its municipal valuer and as may be appropriate in the circumstances.
       2. A mass valuation system or technique that may be approved by a municipality in terms of paragraph (a) includes a valuation system or technique based on predetermined bands of property values and the designation of properties to one of those bands on the basis of minimal market-related data. [My underlining]
11. The market value of a property is also defined in section 46(1) as “the amount the property would have realised if sold on the date of valuation in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer.”
12. Section 46(2) provides that in determining the value the following must be taken into account:
    1. The value of any licence, permission or other privilege granted in terms of legislation in relation to the property;
    2. the value of any immovable improvement on the property that was erected or is being used for a purpose which is inconsistent with or in contravention of the permitted use of the property, as if the improvement was erected or is being used for a lawful purpose; and
    3. the value of the use of the property for a purpose which is inconsistent with or in contravention of the permitted use of the property, as if the property is being used for a lawful purpose.
13. Section 46(3) in turn sets out certain considerations that should be disregarded when determining the value. Determination of rate amount
14. Section 3(1) of the MPRA requires the municipal council to adopt a rates policy in terms of which rates are to be determined.
15. Section 3(3) of the MPRA sets out the determination criteria required to be contained in the rates policy. In particular, the rates policy should contain criteria for the determination of exemptions, rebates and reductions. It should take into account the effect of rates on the poor and include appropriate measures to alleviate the rates burden on them. It should also allow the municipality to promote local social and economic development. Section 8 provides for the levying of different rates for different categories of properties in terms of the rates policy.
16. The MPRA requires community participation for the adoption of a rates policy, and requires the municipality to enact by-laws to give effect to the rates policy.
17. On 28 May 2009 the Stellenbosch municipality adopted Rates Policy (“the Rates Policy”) and draft by-laws giving effect to the Rates Policy, both of which will purportedly take effect on 1 July 2009. The Rates Policy also stipulates that a General Valuation Roll was prepared which also becomes effective on 1 July 2009.
18. It seems, however, that the Rates Policy and by-law were not adopted in accordance with the required procedure in terms of the MSA. This will be discussed later in the memorandum. For the purposes of the following subheading, however, it is assumed that the Stellenbosch Rates Policy is in fact valid. The Stellenbosch Rates Policy
19. Section 5.1 of the Rates Policy determines that rates are expressed as an amount in each rand of the market value of each category of property within the municipality, as recorded in the municipality’s valuation roll, and are determined together with the finalisation of the municipality’s annual budget.
20. The Rates Policy continues to set out certain exemptions and categories of property (notably the distinction between residential and non-residential property).
21. Section 6.1 of the Rates Policy deals with exemptions on residential property and provides that rates will not be levied on:
    1. The first R15 000 of residential property referred to in section 17(1)(h) of the MPRA;
    2. The first R60 000 of residential property owned by registered indigent owners.
22. The Rates Policy also provides for rebates based on household income, senior citizenship and disability.
23. Rebates should be applied for by 30 September of the financial year preceding the year in respect of which the rate is to be levied. It is assumed that all those persons who are currently exempted will remain so for the new financial year, and must re-apply before 30 September 2009 to be exempted for the following financial year. Budgetary provisions on rates
24. Section 14 of the MPRA provides that rates are levied by a municipal resolution passed off by the municipal council with a supporting vote of a majority of its members.
25. The resolution must be published in the Provincial Gazette. It is not clear from the documents before me whether this was in fact done.
26. Item B of the draft budget sets out the proposed increases on rates and tariffs. While the service charges all increase, the rates actually decrease by 10% for both residential and non-residential properties.
27. The budget is therefore not the reason for the increase in rates in the current case. Even if the resolution was not published as required by the MPRA, it would therefore not help the Stellenbosch ratepayers to challenge the validity of the rates as set out in the budget or the resolution.
DISPUTING A RATE AMOUNT
28. The eventual final rate amount which an individual has to pay is influenced by the following:
    1. The market value of the property;
    2. The exemptions, rebates and reductions the individual qualifies for, or has applied for, in terms of the Rates Policy;
    3. The amount in the Rand which the resolution determines as the applicable rate.
29. n the light of the above, the rate amount of an individual may theoretically be disputed on three bases:
    1. Firstly, the individual may challenge the valuation of her or his property in terms of the MPRA.
    2. An individual who qualifies for an exemption, rebate or reduction may dispute a rate amount which did not take this exemption, rebate or reduction into account.
    3. In the case before us, where it is unclear whether the Rates Policy was in fact validly adopted (as the by-laws giving effect to the Rates Policy were not properly published) an individual may dispute the rate amount levied based on the invalidity of the Rates Policy.
30. It is assumed for purposes of this memorandum that the amount in each Rand determined in the annual budget could and should not be disputed. This is based on the fact that the annual budget was already adopted on 28 May 2009. Section 27(4) of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003 provides as follows: “Non-compliance by a municipality with a provision of this Chapter relating to the budget process or a provision in any legislation relating to the approval of a budget-related policy, does not affect the validity of an annual or adjustments budget.”
31. Moreover, it was held in Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC) at para 41 and 42 that the enactment of by-laws concerning rates is a legislative function and not administrative. Therefore the budgetary provisions may not be challenged in terms of administrative law.
32. In any event, as the budget contains a decrease in the rate amount charged in each Rand, the provisions of the budget are not the reason for the increase in rate amounts which is the concern of the Stellenbosch Ratepayers’ Association.
33. This memorandum will therefore focus on the procedure of disputing the rate amount an individual is charged based on a) the valuation of the property and b) the validity of the Rates Policy.
Disputing the valuation of the property
34. The valuation roll must be made public in terms of section 50 of the MPRA.
35. Section 50(1)(c) of the MPRA provides for the lodging of an objection with the municipal manager against any matter reflected in, or omitted from, the roll. This specifically means an objection relating to the value of an individual property.
36. This objection must then, within 14 days after the end of the notice period for the publication of the valuation roll, be submitted to the municipal valuer by the municipal manager. The municipal valuer must promptly decide and dispose of the objections by:
    1. considering objections in accordance with a procedure that may be
    prescribed;
    2. deciding objections on facts, including the submissions of an objector, as well as the owner, if the objector is not the owner;
    3. adjusting the valuation roll in accordance with the decision.
37. If this adjustment amounts to the valuation of a property increasing or decreasing with more than ten percent, the municipal valuer must give written reasons to the municipal manager. Also, the municipal manager must promptly submit the adjustment decision to the valuation appeal board for review.
38. Every person who has notified an objection (and also the owner of the property if the objection was not made by the owner) must be notified of the valuer’s decision in writing by the valuer. Within 30 days after such notification the person who objected (or the owner) may apply to the municipal manager for the written reasons for the decision. (A fee must accompany this application.)
39. The municipal manager then has 30 days to reply to the person who lodges an objection (or the owner) with the written reasons for the decision. These provisions obviously also apply where not adjustment was made or where the objection was refused.
40. A person who lodged an objection (or the owner) who is not satisfied with the decision of the municipal valuer, may lodge an appeal against this decision with the valuation appeal board. If only written notice of the decision was given, the appeal must be lodged within 30 days after receiving such written notice. If written reasons for the decision were given, the appeal must be lodged within 21 days after receiving the written reasons.
41. Within 14 days of these periods, the municipal manager must forward the appeal to the chairperson of the valuation appeals board. The chairperson must convene a meeting of the appeals board within 60 days after an appeal has been so forwarded.The appellant may request written reasons, which must be furnished within 30 days of the request at no cost.Within 30 days from hearing the appeal, the appellant must be advised, in writing, of the appeal board’s decision.
42. If at any point the time periods set out in the MPRA are not complied with, decisions are not taken or delayed, objections are not attended to, or written reasons are not given, the individual has the right to a remedy in terms of just administrative action. In such a case the individual may pursue the remedy of reviewing and setting aside decisions taken or not taken in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.
Resorting to self-help
43. In both procedures set out above for the dispute relating to the value of property (in other words, by the municipal valuer and by the appeal board) provision is made for the event where the adjustment of a property value affects the rate payable on that property. In such an event it is required that the municipal manager must calculate the amount actually paid on the property since the effective date of the rate, the amount payable in terms of the adjusted rate, and then recover from, or repay to, the person liable for payment the difference, plus interest.
44. It is also important to note that both dispute procedures specifically state that the lodging of an objection does not defer liability for payment beyond the date determined for payment. In other words, individuals must pay the rates they are charged first, and then recover the difference should an objection or appeal be successful.
45. It is thus very important not to resort to self-help by paying a different amount merely because one believes the latter to be correct.
46. The Constitutional Court has made its contempt for self-help under these circumstances very clear in Pretoria City Council v Walker 1998 (2) SA 363 (CC).
47. Langa DP held at para 93: Local government is as important a tier of public administration as any. It has to continue functioning for the common good; it, however, cannot do so efficiently and effectively if every person who has a grievance about the conduct of a public official or a governmental structure were to take the law into his or her own hands or resort to self-help by withholding payment for services rendered. That conduct carries with it the potential for chaos and anarchy and can therefore not be appropriate. The kind of society envisaged in the Constitution implies also the exercise of responsibility towards the systems and structures of society. A culture of self-help in which people refuse to pay for services they have received is not acceptable. It is pre-eminently for the courts to grant appropriate relief against any public official, institution or government when there are grievances. It is not for the disgruntled individual to decide what the appropriate relief should be and to combine with others or take it upon himself or herself to punish the government structure by withholding payment which is due.
48. This attitude toward self-help was confirmed in Khabisi NO and Another v Aquarella Investments 83 (Pty) Ltd and Others 2008 (4) SA 195 (T) where Bosielo J held at para 27: I interpose to state that the facts of this case are an excellent demonstration of what may happen if members of the public are allowed to disregard decisions by organs of State which they, rightly or wrongly, may regard as invalid... One shudders to imagine the amount of damage to the environment and ecology which would result if all people who owned properties were to develop them as they wished, much against any objections raised by a competent environmental authority. As the learned Langa DP (as he then was) aptly remarked in the Walker case (supra), our fledgling and nascent democracy with its promise of a healthy environment to the people, cannot afford such conduct.
49. It is therefore clear that ratepayers in Stellenbosch should continue to pay the amounts they are charged, whilst disputing the amount through the legal channels provided.
Validity of the Rates Policy
50. As mentioned above, it is not clear on the documentation before me whether the Stellenbosch Rates Policy is or will in fact be validly adopted.
51. Section 6 of the MPRA requires the municipality to adopt a by-law to give effect to the implementation of its rates policy.
52. At a meeting of the municipal council of 28 May 2009 a by-law relating to the Rates Policy seems to have been purportedly adopted. However, it seems unlikely that this by-law was adopted in accordance with the required procedures relating to the adoption of by-laws.
53. In particular, section 12(3)(b) of the MSA provides that no by-law may be passed unless the proposed by-law has been published for public comment in a manner that allows the public an opportunity to make representations with regard to the proposed by-law. Section 13(a) requires prompt publication in the Provincial Gazette, and when feasible also in a local newspapers.
54. It seems that none of these requirements for publication were complied with. If this is the case, the Rates Policy will not validly come into effect on 1 July 2009. The consequences of the Rates Policy being invalid would include that the municipality would not be able to levy the different categories of rates provided for in the Rates Policy. It would also mean that the exemptions, rebates and reductions provided for in the Rates Policy would be invalid and those ratepayers in whose favour these exemptions are made would not have the benefit of them anymore.
55. It is therefore not recommended that the validity of the Rates Policy should be challenged. It may be that the Rates policy is not in effect, and the appropriate remedy may be a declaratory order. However, the content of the Rates Policy is in the ratepayers’ favour, and any challenge to it would only be to their detriment. Moreover, the municipality may at any time remedy the shortcoming by publishing the by-laws in the Provincial Gazette as required. Then the application would have been money wasted by the client.
QUESTION 1: TAX PAYERS, RATEPAYERS, RESIDENTS AND OWNERS
56. The Stellenbosch Rates Policy defines a “ratepayer” as “a person or entity that is liable, in terms of the MPRA, for the payment of rates on property levied by the Stellenbosch Municipality”.
57. The MPRA contains a definition of “owner” amounting to the person in whose name the property is registered. As set out above, the MPRA provides for the dispute relating to the valuation of the property to be lodged by a person other than the owner.
58. The MPRA requires that the property rate be paid by the owner of a property, subject to Chapter 9 of the MSA (which deals with credit control and debt collection, and which contains section 102).
59. The MSA defines a “ratepayer” as “a person who is liable to the municipality for the payment of a) rates on property in the municipality; b) any other tax, duty or levy imposed by the municipality; or c) fees for services provided either by the municipality or in terms of a service delivery agreement”.
60. Chapter 9 of the MSA refers to “users of services and ratepayers”. It therefore seems to include in the application of section 102 both those person paying rates on the value of their property, as well as those persons not paying such rates but only making use of the services of the municipality.
61. It therefore seems that the measures provided for in section 102 apply to both taxpayers/ratepayers and residents.
62. In the light of the above, it is not clear under which circumstances a person who is not the owner would be liable for property rates. If more research on this question is needed, I would be glad to assist. For the purposes of this memorandum the distinction is, however, not necessary, as section 102 seems to apply across the board.
QUESTION 2: WHICH RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ARE CREATED BY SECTION 102?
63. Section 102(1) provides the municipality with measures aimed at enforcing the payment of accounts for rates and services.
64. Section 102(2) provides protection against person who dispute an amount which they were charged, by providing that the above-mentioned measures may not be implemented against them whilst the amount is still in dispute.
65. With regards to the measures provided for in section 102(1), it should be noted that case law has shown courts to be sympathetic to the need of municipalities have effective measures available with which to enforce the payment of services and rates.
66. The Constitutional Court has mentioned that there is a “special relationship between a municipal council and each ratepayer in that the ratepayer is obliged to pay rates and that the municipal council has the right to collect them and the obligation to use the proceeds for the delivery of services…”
67. The Court has also stated that “[m]unicipalities are obliged to provide water and electricity to the residents in their area as a matter of public duty. It is therefore important that the possibility that municipal debt remains unpaid be reduced by all legitimate means…It must be emphasised that it is imperative for municipalities to do everything reasonable to reduce amounts owing. Otherwise, the sustainability of the delivery of municipal services is likely to be in real jeopardy.”
68. In the same case O’Regan J held that “[t]he ability of local government to carry out its constitutional mandate depends on its financial stability.”
69. It is therefore clear that the courts are sympathetic to enforcement measures such as those provided for in section 102(1) of the MSA.
70. The applicability of section 102(1)(c) and the question as to whether these measures are available to the municipality, however, depends on whether the municipality has implemented a debt collection and credit control policy in terms of the Act.
71. In Hartzenberg and others v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality (Despatch Administrative Unit) 2003 (3) SA 633 (SE) the court held as follows: The provisions relied upon by Mr Rorke are those contained in s 102(1)(c). He submitted that, when these provisions are read with the provisions in s 97(1)(g), it is clear that the respondent has the power to disconnect the electricity supply despite the fact that it has already been paid for, if the account for the supply of water is in arrears because it provides that any of the measures provided for may be implemented in respect of any arrears on any of the accounts of a person. Section 97(1)(g) does not assist the respondent. It does not provide the respondent with any powers. As indicated s 97 merely sets out what the debt collection policy, which the respondent must adopt in terms of s 96(b) of the Act, must provide for and s 97(1)(g) merely describes one of the matters which the policy must provide for. This provision of the Act can therefore not be given the meaning suggested by Mr Rorke. Section 98 of the Act requires the respondent to adopt by-laws to give effect to its debt collection policy. Since hearing argument I requested counsel to furnish me with further written argument and to provide me with particulars of the by-laws adopted by respondent in terms of s 98(1) of the Act. I was informed that no such by-laws have as yet been adopted. In view of the aforegoing, the provisions of s 102(1)(c) also do not assist the respondent because no debt collection policy has as yet been adopted in terms of the Act.
72. In the current case the question is therefore whether the by-laws purportedly adopted on 28 May 2009, which purport to implement the debt collection and credit control policy, have been validly adopted.
73. If they have not, the municipality does not have the debt collection and credit control measures provided for in section 102(1)(c) at its disposal.
74. If it has, the municipality may make use of its debt collection and credit control measures in terms of section 102(1)(c), unless there is dispute pending regarding an amount in terms of section 102(2).
75. The implication of section 102(2) is if course that once the dispute is resolved, the municipality may again make use of any of the measures available to them in terms of section 102(1).
QUESTION 3: RECOMMENDED ACTION
76. As pointed out above, it is not recommended that an attitude of self-help should be adopted by individual ratepayers. Apart from the fact that sections 50(6) and 54(4) of the MPRA explicitly state that a dispute does not defer the liability for payment, the court has also shown contempt for self-help in the above-mentioned case of Pretoria City Council v Walker.
77. Moreover, no dispute will last an indeterminate amount of time. Specific time periods are set out in the MPRA within which a dispute should be resolved. If the finalisation of the dispute is delayed, the person affected has a right to administrative justice which may be enforced in terms of PAJA.
78. Any dispute will therefore be resolved at some point, and if a person has withheld payment whilst the dispute was pending, he or she will be liable to pay the difference on the entire time for which they have fallen into arrears. Moreover, they will be liable to pay interest on the amount in arrears:
    1. Sections 55 (2)(b) and 55(3) of the MPRA requires interest to be paid on the difference once a dispute is resolved.
    2. Section 15 of the Stellenbosch Credit Control and Debt Recovery Policy also requires the payment of interest on amounts in arrears. Water and electricity charges are, however, excluded.
    3. Regulation 9 of the Municipal Property Rates Regulations, 2006, set out the method by which the amount of interest must be calculated once a dispute lodged in terms of the MPRA is resolved.
79. Therefore, even if self-help were legal, it would not be recommended, as an individual will be likely to be liable to repay huge amounts.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
80. The recommended procedure is thus as follows: 80.1. Ratepayers should pay the amounts they are levied by the municipality; and in the meanwhile: 80.2. if an individual believes that a rate is too high because his or her property is valued too high on the valuation roll, the valuation should be disputed in terms of the MPRA objection and appeal procedure; 80.3. if an individual believes that he or she should qualify for an exemption, rebate or reduction in terms of the (valid) Rates Policy, a dispute to this effect should be initiated. Section 8 of credit control policy makes provision for consumers to query accounts.

Adv Lise Smit
Chambers, Cape Town
3 June 2009 (preliminary draft)

________________________________________

For public infrastructure, and on the first R15 000 of the market value of a property assigned by the municipality for certain purposes, see section 11(1)(b) and (c).
Regulation 2 of the Municipal Property Rates Regulations, 2006, sets out the format which the valuation roll is required to take.
Section 3(3)(b) and 3(3)(e).
Section 3(3)(f) Section 3(3)(i).
Section 4.
Section 6.
Section 6.1.1(i).
Section 6.1.1(ii).
Section 14(2) of the MPRA.
See also, in this regard, the opinion of Adv Elsa Van Huyssteen relating to the adoption of the budget.
Regulation 4 of the Municipal Property Rates Regulations, 2006, describes the information which the notice publishing the valuation roll must contain.
The objection must be in the format contained in Annexure 4 of the Municipal Property Rates Regulations, 2006.
Section 50(2) of the MPRA.
Section 59(5) of the MPRA.
Sections 50(5) and 51 of the MPRA.
Section 52(1)(a) of the MPRA.
Section 52(1)(b) of the MPRA.
Section 53(1) of the MPRA.
Section 5(2) of the MPRA.
Section 53(3) of the MPRA.
The appeal must be in the format contained in Annexure 5 of the Municipal Property Rates Regulations, 2006 (Regulation 6(1)).
Section 54(2) of the MPRA.
Section 54(3)(a) of the MPRA.
Section 54(3)(b) of the MPRA.
Regulation 8(5) of the Municipal Property Rates Regulations, 2006.
Regulation 8(6) of the Municipal Property Rates Regulations, 2006.
Sections 55(2) and 69(2) of the MPRA. Regulation 9 of the Municipal Property Rates Regulations, 2006, sets out the method of calculation of the interest.
Sections 50(6) and 54(4) of the MPRA.
Section 4, Definitions.
De Beer NO v North-Central Local Council and South-Central Local Council and others (Umhlatuzana Civic Assocation intervening) 2002 (1) SA 429 (CC).
Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another and two other cases 2005 (1) SA 530 (CC)at para 38.
Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another and two other cases 2005 (1) SA 530 (CC) at para 62.
Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another and two other cases 2005 (1) SA 530 (CC) at para 105.. [34]
Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another and two other cases 2005 (1) SA 530 (CC)at para 38.
[34] Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another and two other cases 2005 (1) SA 530 (CC) at para 62.
[34] Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another and two other cases 2005 (1) SA 530 (CC) at para 105.