Golden Core Trade and Invest (Pty) Ltd v Merafong City Local Municipality and Another

AngloGold Ashanti Limited (later substituted by Golden Core Trade and Invest (Pty) Ltd) operated gold mines in Carletonville and purchased bulk potable water from Rand Water, using it for both industrial mining processes and domestic purposes for mine workers. Following the commencement of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997, Merafong City Local Municipality became the water services authority and required the mines to apply for approval under ss 6 and 7 of the Act. In 2004 the Municipality approved AngloGold’s application but imposed substantially higher tariffs, including surcharges, despite providing no additional services beyond those of Rand Water. AngloGold appealed to the Minister under s 8(4). In July 2005 the Minister upheld the appeal, overturning the surcharge on industrial water use and limiting municipal charges to domestic water. The Municipality rejected the decision, continued enforcing its tariffs, and only sought to review the Minister’s decision many years later after extensive litigation, including proceedings in the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, and Constitutional Court.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court’s judgment was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the Municipality’s review application with costs. It was declared that the water tariffs imposed by the Municipality on the appellant for both industrial and domestic use from 1 July 2004 until the promulgation of new tariffs were unlawful. The Municipality was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs in the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, and Constitutional Court proceedings.

The case is significant for clarifying the law on delay in legality and administrative reviews, reaffirming that organs of state cannot ignore administrative decisions on the basis of alleged invalidity without promptly seeking judicial review. It reinforces the Oudekraal principle, the limits of reactive challenges by state entities, and the binding nature of ministerial decisions under the Water Services Act until set aside. The judgment also has important implications for municipal tariff-setting powers and intergovernmental disputes in the water services context.