After the amalgamation of formerly white Pretoria with the black townships of Atteridgeville and Mamelodi, the City Council of Pretoria continued to levy municipal water and electricity charges differently. Residents of old Pretoria were charged on a metered, consumption-based tariff, while residents of the two townships were charged a lower flat rate due to the absence (and later incomplete installation) of meters. The council also pursued legal action to recover arrears only against residents of old Pretoria, including Mr Walker, while generally not enforcing payment against residents of the townships. Walker admitted owing the amount claimed but withheld payment, alleging that the differential tariffs and selective enforcement constituted unfair racial discrimination contrary to section 8 of the interim Constitution, and that the council acted in breach of section 178(2). The magistrate ruled for the council, but the Transvaal High Court set this aside and granted absolution from the instance. The council appealed to the Constitutional Court.
Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal succeeded in part: the Constitutional Court overturned the High Court’s finding that the tariff differentiation was unfairly discriminatory, but confirmed that selective enforcement of debt recovery was unconstitutional. The order of absolution from the instance was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the magistrate’s court for determination of the council’s claim in a manner consistent with the judgment.
This was a foundational equality case in South African constitutional law. It clarified the distinction between mere differentiation and unfair discrimination, emphasising context, purpose, and justification. The judgment recognised the legitimacy of temporary remedial measures to address apartheid-era inequalities while affirming that state organs may not selectively enforce the law in a discriminatory manner. It significantly shaped early equality jurisprudence under section 8 of the interim Constitution.