Sibanye Gold Limited and Others v The Valuation Appeal Board for Rand West City Local Municipality and Others

The appellants, mining companies operating in Rand West City, have been in dispute with the municipality since 2013 regarding the valuation of their mining properties for municipal property rates. Following amendments to the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004, certain surface infrastructure associated with mining became rateable. A supplementary valuation roll (SVR4) published in 2019 valued the appellants’ mining rights at approximately R3.158 billion. The appellants objected unsuccessfully and appealed to the Valuation Appeal Board (VAB). By agreement, certain interpretative issues under sections 17(1)(f) and 46(3) of the Rates Act were separated and decided first. In July 2022 the VAB ruled largely in favour of the municipality, holding various mining-related infrastructure to be rateable. The appellants sought to review this interlocutory ruling without finalising the appeal before the VAB. Makume J dismissed the review on the basis that internal remedies had not been exhausted and ordered the VAB appeal to proceed. When the appellants sought leave to appeal, the municipality successfully applied under section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act for the immediate execution of Makume J’s order. The appellants then exercised their automatic right of appeal under section 18(4) against that execution order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The order of the court a quo granting the municipality’s section 18(3) application was upheld, and the order of 9 September 2024 was declared immediately operational and executable.

The judgment reinforces the strict but workable application of section 18 of the Superior Courts Act and confirms that execution may be ordered even after leave to appeal is refused. It underscores that prolonged administrative and statutory delays, particularly where they undermine municipal finances and constitutional obligations, can constitute exceptional circumstances. The case is significant for municipal valuation disputes and clarifies the interaction between PAJA’s exhaustion of internal remedies and interlocutory review attempts.