Afriforum joins City’s ratepayers in opposing new tariff structure

A Legal Challenge to Municipal Finance AfriForum, a civil rights organisation, has entered the legal fray over Cape Town’s 2025/26 municipal tariff structure, lodging a High Court challenge against the city’s property-value-linked charges for water, sanitation, and cleaning services.

The group asserts that this model contravenes constitutional tenets of fairness and proportionality, arguing that fees for basic services should reflect usage rather than imputed wealth.  “Charging based on property value lacks rationality,” AfriForum’s Jurie Ferreira has stated, framing the City’s move as a departure from legal rules linking tariffs to services rendered.

This follows a prior salvo from the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA), which in July initiated its own action against what it calls unlawful taxation masquerading as service fees. Representing commercial, industrial, and select residential owners, SAPOA warns that, despite a city reprieve delaying commercial tariff hikes until July 2026, inaction now risks embedding these charges in future budgets.

The Cape Town Collective Ratepayers’ Association (CTCRA), speaking for 57 neighbourhood groups, has rallied behind these efforts, spotlighting the burden on middle-class households. “A R4m home does not mean disposable income,” it notes, citing areas like Goodwood and Pinelands where property values outstrip earnings.

The Cape Independence Party (CAPEXIT) sought to widen the lens, attributing tariff pressures to stingy national revenue shares under Section 214 of the Constitution. Its bid to join as amicus curiae was rebuffed by the city, prompting CAPEXIT’s Jack Miller to lambast a preference for “squeezing ratepayers” over securing central funds which the city sorely needs, as they write off billions in debt each budget cycle. Yet the mayor strongly opposed trying to let the City’s ratepayers keep any more than the R5 billion of their taxes which return from the national government out of the R230 billion Cape Town contributes to the national fiscus.

Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis has countered with a staunch defence of the tariff regime, branding it “fair, pro-poor, and sustainable”. He insists that fixed charges, covering infrastructure like pipes and cables, are indispensable, irrespective of consumption fluctuations. “These costs don’t vanish,” he argues, positioning the graduated structure as a bulwark for “equitable” service delivery. Wealthier owners, he says, shoulder more to protect the vulnerable.

But the retreat from the first proposed tariff structure following public criticism reveals the mayoralty had placed no consideration of this at all. The budget tweaks post-consultation include widened pensioner relief, lower charges for homes under R2.5m, and a discarded “pipe levy”.

The tariffs themselves escalate sharply by property value. Homes between R500,001 and R750,000 face a monthly total of R135.76 for water, sanitation, and cleaning, while those in the R4m-R4.5m range pay R646.32. At the extreme, properties exceeding R100m incur R15,091.92.

Critics decry this as punitive; proponents see it as progressive. But the DA’s hypocrisy after opposing just such a tariff programme in Tshwane has weakened their legitimacy. It may also hurt their chances of winning this court battle, as Tshwane has recently lost to AfriForum’s legal challenge.