Copperleaf, the first respondent in the appeal and the first appellant in the cross appeal, owned two portions of property, both initially classified as business/commercial as these properties were in the process of being established as townships. However, a change in the City’s rates policies and subsequent interpretation thereof, resulted in one portion being re-categorised as “vacant land” due to a substitution of the holding title deed for a Certificate of Registered Title (CRT). This re-categorisation by the City lead to the City declaring the property ratable as “vacant land” which effectively lead to Copperleaf being charged increased rates and taxes by the City as the property was no longer categorised as business/commercial, which had a lower rate.

The City submitted during argument before the SCA that the substitution of title deed with the issuance of the CRT altered the legal status of the property, excluding it from the business/commercial category. The SCA, however, found this argument untenable, ruling that the property still formed part of the developer’s stock and should be categorised as business/commercial.

The SCA dismissed the appeal and granted a cross-appeal by Copperleaf, and further directed the City to adjust the supplementary valuation rolls to reflect the property as business/commercial. Additionally, the City was ordered to reimburse Copperleaf for the overpaid rates resulting from the incorrect categorisation.

This decision highlights the critical significance of accurately interpreting municipal policies when assessing property rates. Incorrect interpretation can inevitably result in litigation, as municipalities may be compelled to undergo policy reviews, ultimately facing liability for associated costs.