Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:02:59Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:02:59Z
dc.date.created 2005-01-12 en
dc.identifier.citation [2004] ZACC 21
dc.identifier.citation 2005 (2) SA 323 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2218
dc.title City of Cape Town and Another v Robertson and Another en
dc.title.alternative CCT19/04 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT19/04 en
dc.date.hearing 7 September 2004
dc.contributor.judge Moseneke J
dc.date.judgment 29 November 2004
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2218/Full%20judgment%20%28378%20Kb%29-3107.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application for leave to appeal against decision of the Cape High Court declaring the provisional valuation roll of the Cape Metropolitan Area invalid. The validity of the provisional valuation roll was challenged on three grounds. First, that the Ordinance is not a law in force and therefore the City could not rely on it for levying rates. Second, that in any case, the City could not impose rates because it was not a local authority as described by the Ordinance. And third, that there was no other law empowering the City to charge property rates based on a provisional valuation roll. Moseneke J for a unanimous Court rejected all of the respondent's arguments and ordered that the decision of the High Court be set aside.
dc.concourt.casehistory Appeal against a decision and orders of the Cape High Court: Robertson and Another v City of Cape Town and Another ; Truman-Baker v City of Cape Town 2004 (5) SA 412 (C) ; 2004 (9) BCLR 950 (C).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account