Court ruling on Tshwane’s Cleansing Levy may impact Cape Town

Cape Town’s mayor, Hill-Lewis, seeks to distinguish the city’s “City-Wide Cleaning Tariff” from Tshwane’s “Cleansing Levy,” which a court has ruled unlawful. The Tshwane judgment, however, hinged not only on the city charging for an undelivered service but on its lack of legal authority, contravening Section 229 of the Constitution and municipal finance legislation.

The Pretoria High Court deemed Tshwane’s levy ultra vires, as it was enacted outside the approved tariff framework and lacked legislative or policy grounding. Despite its distinct label, Cape Town’s “cleaning” tariff invites comparable legal scrutiny. Designating it a “cleaning charge” rather than a “refuse removal fee” does not exempt it from the obligation to be legally authorised, tied to specific services, and equitably imposed.

The mayor contends that the City-Wide Cleaning Tariff is neither new nor a source of additional revenue, having been previously embedded in electricity tariffs. This claim raises questions: was the cost removed from electricity charges before its introduction as a separate item? Failure to do so could amount to double charging, prohibited under the Electricity Regulation Act and the Municipal Finance Management Act. Moreover, opaque cost-shifting between services—the very practice censured in the Tshwane ruling—erodes ratepayers’ rights and breaches tariff-setting standards.

Cape Town cannot dismiss the Tshwane decision as irrelevant. Recent rulings have clarified that tariffs must reflect measurable service delivery, directly benefit those charged, and follow transparent, lawful processes, including public consultation and alignment with approved budgets and Integrated Development Plans. Absent a new Section 28 budget amendment, sufficient public engagement, or the prior removal of the cost from electricity tariffs, Cape Town’s charge risks legal challenge, much like Tshwane’s.

The mayor’s characterisation is misleadingHill-Lewis’s assertion that Cape Town is merely “recovering costs” while Tshwane was “charging for nothing” sidesteps a central fact: both cities introduced levies to address budget deficits, though only Tshwane’s has faced judicial review to date. This framing glosses over the procedural flaws that invalidated Tshwane’s levy, which may equally undermine Cape Town’s “tariff”.