Bouwe Wiersma has been watching the Lesedi Local Municipality’s legal maneuvers with a mixture of frustration and resignation. He was one of the ratepayers who took the municipality to court over its 2024-29 general valuation roll. He won. The High Court in Johannesburg declared the roll unlawful and ordered the municipality to fix its mistakes.
But the municipality isn’t accepting defeat.
Lesedi has filed an application for leave to appeal, arguing that the ruling was flawed in both fact and law. The move sets the stage for a continued legal battle over property ratesa battle that ratepayers thought they had already won.
“There is nothing materially new in the municipality’s arguments,” Wiersma said. “It largely repeats an already rejected stance and still refuses to accept the court’s finding that full compliance with the rule of law, particularly on public participation, was required.”
What the Court Found
On 24 February 2026, the High Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Lesedi municipality. It found that the municipality had failed to comply with mandatory public notice requirements under the Municipal Property Rates Act before implementing the new valuation roll. Public participation, the court held, is not optional. It is a legal requirement that must be fulfilled.
The court ordered the municipality to recalculate its rates, credit any overpayments, and issue adjusted statements within 60 days. It was temporarily barred from pursuing debt collection against ratepayers pending compliance. The message was clear: follow the law, or face consequences.
For ratepayers who had challenged the roll, the judgment was a validation. They had argued that the process was flawed, that they were not properly consulted, that the municipality was cutting corners. The court agreed.
The Municipality’s Response
Lesedi’s application for leave to appeal argues that the court got it wrong. The municipality contends that the ruling “mischaracterised” the relief sought by the ratepayers. It argues that the applicants did not directly challenge key underlying decisionsthe valuation roll itself, the rates policy, or council resolutions approving tariffs.
The crux of the appeal is procedural. According to the municipality, the court erred in treating the matter as a legality review instead of one governed by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. Processes such as property valuation and categorisation, the municipality argues, constitute administrative action and should have been reviewed under PAJA.
This is not a trivial distinction. PAJA has its own requirements, its own timeframes, its own standards of review. If the municipality is correct that the ratepayers should have brought their case under PAJA rather than as a legality review, the entire foundation of the judgment could be called into question.
The Stakes
The municipality warns that setting aside the entire valuation roll affects all ratepayers, undermines municipal budgeting, and threatens service delivery. It’s a common argument from local government facing legal challenges: if you force us to follow the rules, we won’t be able to deliver services.
But ratepayers like Wiersma are skeptical. “They refused to follow the rules from the start,” he said. “Now they want to use service delivery as an excuse to avoid accountability.”
The tension is real. Municipalities need revenue to function. Property rates are a primary source of that revenue. If the valuation roll is flawed, the rates based on it are flawed. But fixing the roll takes time, costs money, and creates administrative headaches. The municipality’s appeal can be read as an attempt to avoid those headaches.
The Public Participation Question
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental principle: public participation matters. The Municipal Property Rates Act requires municipalities to give notice of new valuation rolls, to allow ratepayers to object, to consider those objections before finalizing the roll. Lesedi allegedly failed to do this.
The requirement is not bureaucratic red tape. It is a protection for property owners, ensuring that they have a say in how their properties are valued and how much they are taxed. When municipalities skip this step, they deny ratepayers that protection.
The court found that Lesedi did exactly that. Now the municipality wants a higher court to reconsider.
What Happens Next
Lesedi’s application for leave to appeal will be heard by the same court that issued the original ruling, or possibly by a full Bench. If leave is granted, the appeal will proceed to a higher courtpotentially the Supreme Court of Appeal. If leave is denied, the original judgment stands, and the municipality must comply with its orders.
For ratepayers, the appeal means continued uncertainty. The 60-day clock for recalculations and credits has not started; it will not start until the appeal is resolved. Debt collection remains on hold, but rates continue to accrue. No one knows what they ultimately owe.
For the municipality, the appeal is a gamble. Winning would overturn an inconvenient judgment. Losing would confirm the original ruling and likely add legal costs. Either way, the process will take months, possibly longer.
The Bigger Picture
This case is about more than one municipality and one valuation roll. It’s about whether local government can be held accountable for following the law. It’s about whether ratepayers have meaningful recourse when procedures are ignored. It’s about the balance between administrative efficiency and legal compliance.
Lesedi’s appeal suggests that some municipalities view court orders as obstacles to be challenged rather than instructions to be followed. That approach, if widespread, undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in local government.
Wiersma and his fellow ratepayers thought they had achieved justice in February. Now they must wait again, watching as the municipality fights to avoid implementing a judgment it doesn’t like. The legal battle continues, and the outcome remains uncertain.
For now, the valuation roll remains in legal limbo, the municipality’s appeal pending, and ratepayers waiting to see whether their victory in court will survive the next round of litigation.
