City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Copperleaf Country Estate (Pty) Ltd and Another

Copperleaf Country Estate (Pty) Ltd was a township developer and registered owner of erven in Peach Tree Extension 2, held initially under a deed of partition and later under a certificate of registered title (CRT) issued in terms of s 43 of the Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937. Although the erven were physically vacant pending transfer to individual purchasers, the City of Tshwane historically rated such properties as business/commercial. After the issuance of the CRT in December 2008, the City re-categorised the Peach Tree Extension 2 erven as ‘vacant land’, attracting more than double the rates. This re-categorisation appeared in the 2010–2011 supplementary valuation roll and was carried through to subsequent valuation rolls. Copperleaf contended that the re-categorisation was unlawful, procedurally defective, and based on a misinterpretation of the City’s rates policies, which did not exclude CRT-held properties from the business/commercial category. Litigation ensued involving objections, an appeal to the Valuation Appeal Board, review and counter-review proceedings, and ultimately an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal by the City of Tshwane was dismissed with costs. Copperleaf’s cross-appeal succeeded. The 2010–2011 supplementary valuation roll and the 2013–2017 general valuation roll were reviewed and set aside insofar as they categorised the relevant properties as vacant land. The properties were substituted as business/commercial, the City was ordered to adjust the valuation rolls, calculate overpaid rates, and repay Copperleaf with interest. The City was also ordered to pay costs, including costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies the interpretation of municipal rates policies concerning township developers and confirms that the issuance of a certificate of registered title does not, without more, justify higher ‘vacant land’ rates. It reinforces principles of legality, proper statutory interpretation, and administrative justice in municipal valuation and rating processes. The judgment also confirms that valuation rolls based on earlier invalid administrative acts may themselves be invalid.