In a significant judgment handed down by the High Court, the legal boundaries between municipal service delivery and the enforceability of township establishment conditions have been clarified. The case, brought by the Hillandale Homeowners Association, trading as Woodland Hills Wildlife Estate Homeowners Association, against the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality, centred on the right to render refuse removal services within the Woodland Hills Township in Bloemfontein.
The core of the Applicant’s case was a request for declaratory relief confirming its entitlement to carry out refuse removal services independently, thereby excluding the Municipality from doing so and to prevent the Municipality from levying fees for such services within the township. The dispute arose from the township establishment Proclamations issued in 2004 and 2018, which clearly stated that the “town owner shall be responsible for the removal of household refuse in the town.”
Background and Legal Context
The Applicant is a non-profit company representing homeowners within the Woodland Hills Township. The First Respondent, Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality, is constitutionally and statutorily charged with municipal service delivery. The establishment of the township was approved on condition that a service agreement be concluded between the developer and the Municipality, which was done in 2004 and extended in 2018.
However, the Proclamations expressly reserved the responsibility for refuse removal to the town owner, not the Municipality. Despite this, the Municipality rendered refuse removal services and levied charges for such services on all residents of the estate.
Points of Contention
The Municipality contended that refuse removal formed part of the broader service level agreement (SLA) concluded with the developer and that, in any event, the Municipality held exclusive authority over municipal services such as waste management. It further argued that the Applicant should have pursued dispute resolution under the SLA before approaching the Court.
The Court, however, found no merit in these defences. It held that refuse removal was not included in the SLA, and more importantly, the two Proclamations expressly conferred that responsibility on the town owner. The Municipality had participated in the township establishment process, failed to object to the Proclamation terms, and could not now repudiate them.
Municipal Revenue vs Legal Competency
Notably, internal correspondence revealed that the Municipality’s primary concern was not legal competency but the potential loss of revenue. The Court dismissed this reasoning, affirming that a municipality cannot assert authority to deliver a service purely for financial gain where such authority has not been lawfully conferred.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Applicant was required to exhaust the SLA’s dispute resolution mechanisms. Since the dispute arose not from the interpretation of the SLA, but from the legal effect of the Proclamations, the Applicant was not bound to arbitrate or mediate beforehand.
Use of Municipal Landfill and Refuse Fees
While the Applicant will now manage refuse collection, the waste will still be deposited at the Municipality’s landfill site. The Court acknowledged this practical reality and recognised that municipalities incur costs in maintaining such sites. However, absent a counterclaim for landfill usage charges, the Municipality could not continue levying refuse removal fees for a service it did not render.
The Court’s Order
The High Court declared that:
- The Applicant is solely responsible for refuse removal within Woodland Hills Township.
- The Municipality must immediately cease charging refuse removal fees in respect of all immovable properties within the township.
- The Municipality is to bear the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.
Legal Implications
This decision reaffirms the binding nature of township establishment Proclamations and confirms that municipalities cannot act contrary to such conditions once gazetted and unchallenged. It also distinguishes between municipal service obligations and municipal service rights, emphasising that even constitutionally protected functions do not grant carte blanche over all service areas, especially where provincial or municipal-level Proclamations explicitly state otherwise.
For property developers, homeowners’ associations, and municipalities alike, the case underscores the importance of carefully aligning service level agreements with proclaimed township conditions and ensuring that statutory processes are followed and challenged in good time if necessary.
At Mayet & Associates, we provide expert advisory and litigation services in municipal law, administrative law, and property development disputes. If your entity is navigating complex service delivery obligations or challenging municipal decisions, our team is ready to assist.
