City of Joburg hides list of court losses

Despite a string of courtroom defeats exposing unlawful disconnections, billing chaos and valuation abuses, the City of Joburg insists it cannot disclose the very cases that have brought it to heel.

Citing privacy laws and procedural constraints, the city has refused to provide councillors or the public with a list of adverse judgments, cost orders, or disciplinary outcomes – even as residents continue to win scathing rulings in the High Court in Johannesburg.

Courts intervene as municipal systems falter

Legal practitioners say the courts are stepping in where municipal systems have failed, but the city’s response suggests a bureaucracy more committed to shielding itself than to reform.

In recent months, six major cases have gone against the city, including Ordicode v City of Joburg (COJ), Erf 784 Robindale Five v COJ, Hyde Park Gardens v City Power and Others, Phillips v COJ, BIR Investments v COJ, Tarica v COJ, and at the end of last month, COJ and the Municipal Valuer v The Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Joburg and Owners of Units in Melrose Square on Oaks.

The high court reaffirmed and applied the principles established in the BIR and Tarica judgments – protecting the public from unlawful and abusive municipal conduct, this time within the property-valuation system.

Legal victories affirm public protections

The ruling strengthens oversight of the city’s Valuation Appeal Board and curbs what the court described as procedural irregularities and unfair treatment of property owners.

ALSO READ: Joburg residents owe Joburg Water and City Power R84 million

In BIR Investments v COJ, Chohan AJ wrote off more than R8.7 million in prescribed electricity charges and barred the city from further disconnections.

Legal practitioners from HBGS Attorneys, who led the BIR and Tarica teams, said the decision confirms the courts’ commitment to holding municipalities accountable for billing and valuation abuses.

Chantelle Gladwin said the firm’s public law department was “committed to seeing justice done”.

“Management in the city changes, but the systems remain broken. Queries close automatically after 30 days, even if unresolved. The databases don’t talk to each other,” she said.

In a written response to DA councillor A Marais, the city’s finance department said while a law firm had been appointed to review all adverse judgments and costs against the municipality, the process had stalled due to constitutional and statutory constraints.

The city said the information requested – including names of employees, officials and legal representatives criticised in judgments – constitutes “personal information” protected under the Protection of Personal Information Act.

Processing that data without consent, it said, would be unlawful and could expose the municipality to fines of up to R10 million.

ALSO READ: Joburg to fast-track informal trader verification after court ruling

Privacy cited to block accountability

Court records are stored digitally on secure systems such as court online and caselines, which are accessible only to attorneys.

Blanket data requests for internal audits fall outside these protocols.

The city warned accessing or analysing employee data without consent could also breach the Labour Relations Act by amounting to an unfair labour practice.

It said a law firm had applied to the registrar of the high court and the information regulator for permission or possible exemption to complete the review lawfully.

“The city cannot provide meaningful or accurate information until lawful access and consent are obtained,” the reply said.

The city had not directly responded to questions around the court loss matters at the time of publication.

ALSO READ: CoJ loses two more high court incorrect billing cases

Pattern of municipal misconduct

• Ordicode v COJ: The court barred the city from disconnecting power over unexplained charges, slapping it with punitive costs – a clear signal that arbitrary billing won’t be tolerated.
• Erf 784 Robindale Five v COJ: A Randburg complex endured contradictory bills and repeated threats of disconnection, exposing the chaos and coercion embedded in the city’s billing system.
• Hyde Park Gardens v City Power: The city was found in contempt for ignoring a long-standing court order – an act of defiance that undermines the rule of law.
• SS Protea Estates v COJ: Officials were ordered to rebuild the account from scratch and suspend interest until it was accurate – an indictment of the city’s inability to maintain basic financial integrity.
• David Phillips v COJ: An 81-year-old pensioner prevailed after being billed for a meter not on his property. Judge Chohan called it “an indictment on the city’s constitutional duty”.

* The story is produced by Our City News, a non-profit newsroom that serves the people of Joburg