National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai's of South Africa v Valuation Appeal Board and Others (2022/028526) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1334 (17 December 2024)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPPHC 1334 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai's of South Africa v Valuation Appeal Board and Others (2022/028526) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1334 (17 December 2024) National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai's of South Africa v Valuation Appeal Board and Others (2022/028526) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1334 (17 December 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_1334.html sino date 17 December 2024 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 2022-028526 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. DATE 17/12/2024 SIGNATURE: LENYAI J In the matter of: THE NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE                Applicant BAHAI’S OF SOUTH AFRICA And THE VALUATION APPEAL BOARD, THE                             First Respondent CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY THE MUNICIPAL VALUER, THE CITY OF                            Second Respondent JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN            Third Respondent MUNICIPALITY Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading to Caselines. The date and time of hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on 17 December 2024 JUDGMENT LENYAI J [1]        This is an application in terms of which the following reliefs are sought by the applicant: 1.1       That, in as much as it may be held to be necessary, the time period for the institution of the review proceedings in respect of the relief claimed by the Applicant in the Notice of Motion, be extended in terms of the provisions of section 9 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 ; 1.2       That the decision by the First Respondent to categorise for purposes  of the 2013 General Valuation Roll, the property of the Applicant, Holding 2[...] North Riding, as “ agricultural residential” be declared unlawful and/or illegal and be set aside; 1.3       That the failure by the Third Respondent to review and set aside the decision of the First Respondent when the First Respondent illegally changed the category of the Applicant’s property, Holding 2[...] North Riding from “ religious” to “ agricultural residential” for inclusion in the Third Respondent’ s 2013 General Valuation Roll be reviewed and set aside; 1.4       That the categorization of the Applicant’s property as “ agricultural residential” , Erf 2[...] North Riding, in the 2013 General Valuation Roll be set aside and replaced with the category of “ religious” ; 1.5       That the Third Respondent correct its financial records to reflect the change in category in respect of the Applicant’s property in accordance with paragraph 1.2 of this order for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2018 on the Applicant’s rates account, account no 4[...]; 1.6       That the Third Respondent provides the Applicant with a reconciled rates account 4[...] to reflect the changes ordered in paragraph 1.3 of this order; 1.7       That the costs of this application be paid by the Third Respondent, alternatively, to be paid jointly and severally by the First and Third Respondents, the one paying the other to be absolved; 1.8       That such further and/or alternative relief, which the Court may deem meet, be granted to the Applicant. [2]        This matter is opposed by the second and third respondents. No papers were filed on behalf of the first respondent. [3]        The parties filed two joint practice notes on the 17 th July 2024 and 29 July 2024 respectively.  In the joint practice notes the following are the common cause facts: 3.1       The applicant is the registered owner of three properties separately registered in the deed’s registry. These three separate but contagious properties are within the jurisdiction of the third respondent and are utelised as the applicant’s National Centre. These properties are : (a)       Portion 172 (a portion of portion 2) of the Farm Olievenhoutpoort 196; (b)       Holding 2 [...] North Riding Agricultural Holding A.H, (Holding 2 [...] ), and (c)        Holding 2 [...] (also known as portion 120) of the Farm Olievenhoutpoort 196. 3.2       The issue in this matter is the entry in the General Valuation Roll (GVR) and the decisions of the Municipal Valuer and the Board in relation to Holding 2[...] (the subject property), as it was reflected on the City’ s 2013 General Valuation Roll (2013 GVR), effective from 01 July 2013 to August 2018. 3.3       The property category of Holding 2[...] in the City’ s 2013 GVR was “ agricultural residential”. Before the City’ s 2013 GVR came into effect, the category of Holding 2[...] was “ religious”. 3.4       The 2013 GVR, with a valuation date of 27 May 2013, reflected Holding 2[...] with the property category of “ agricultural residential” and a Market Value of “nil”. 3.5       While a property within the “ religious” category is exempt from rates in terms of section 17(1)(i) of the Rates Act, an “ agricultural residential” is subject to rates. The Applicant’s challenge is thus essentially to avoid the rates implication of the category change from the “ religious” category to the “ agricultural residential” category. 3.6       The Applicant’s prayers in relation to the 2013 GVR, are (a)       The decision of the Board to categorise Holding 2 [...] as “ agricultural residential” be declared unlawful and set aside. (b)       The categorization of Holding 2 [...] as “ agricultural r esidential” be replaced with “ religious” . 3.7       The Applicant has abandoned Prayer 3 of the Notice of Motion , seeking to declare unlawful and setting aside the Board’s decision to uphold the Municipal Valuer’s decision to change the category of Holding 2 [...] from “ religious” to “ agricultural residential” . 3.8       Holding 2[...] North Riding AH is registered in Applicant’s name with the title deed condition B(1) which provides that: “ The Holding may be used only for the purpose contemplated by the definition  of the terms contained in the Agricultural Holdings (Transvaal) Registration Act 1919.” 3.9      Holding 2[...] is zoned as “ agricultural holding”. 3.10    The City’s 2013 Rates Policy defines “ agricultural residential” category as: “ (l)       Agricultural Residential Agricultural holdings shall be rated according to the published tariff unless the owner can prove that he/she is a bona fide farmer”. 3.11    The City’s 2013 Rates Policy defines “ religious” category as: (q)       Religious Property in this category refers to property registered in the name of and used primarily as a place of public worship  by a religious community, including an official residence registered in the name of the community who officiates at services at that place of worship”. 3.12    The Third Respondent only implemented the increased rates amount, caused by the change in category  during August 2018. 3.13    Up until 19 August 2019, the Applicant was not liable for the payment of rates on the subject property due to the exemption granted to religious properties in the Third Respondent’s Property Rates Policies. 3.14    The decision to categorise properties and record same in a valuation roll is the function of a municipal valuer. 3.15    The First Respondent performs the functions of an Appeal Board in respect of objections raised by owners of properties in respect of the valuation or categorization of properties, in terms of the provisions of Section 54 of the Rates Act. The First Respondent furthermore performs the functions of review in respect of decisions of the Second Respondent which amends the values of properties with more than 10%, either upward or downward, in terms of the provisions of Section 52 of the Rates Act. 3.16    An objection by the City to the entry in the 2013 GVR resulted in the Market Value of Holding 2[...] being changed to R9 700 000.00 with an effective date of 01 July 2013. The decision of the change in category of the subject property was that of the Municipal Valuer. 3.17    The outcome of the objection in terms of Section 53(1) of the Rates Act, dated 4 April 2014, was addressed to the Applicant. 3.18    The Respondents contend that the 4 April 2014 notice formed the basis of the review undertaken by the First Respondent on 26 September 2018. The 4 April 2014 notice informed the Applicant of the Section 52 review process and its right of appeal. 3.19    A revised Municipal Valuer’s Decision also in terms of Section 53 of the Rates Act, dated 10 November 2015 on the 2013 GVR resulted in a change in the category of the subject property from ‘ agricultural residential” to “ religious” with an effective date of 01 July 2013. The value remained R9 700 000.00. 3.20    The first supplementary valuation roll to the 2013 GVR reflected the subject property as “ agricultural residential” with value entry remaining at R9 700 000.00. 3.21    A Municipal Valuer Decision in respect of objection reference OBJ-444422 to the Supplementary Valuation Roll 1, dated 15 January 2016, resulted in category of the subject property being changed from “ agricultural residential” to “ religious” with a value of R4 500 000.00. 3.22    On 26 September 2018 the Board took a decision on a review in terms of Section 52 of the Rates Act. This Section 52 Review outcome on OBJ-220637 was triggered by the change in the value of the subject property to R9 700 000.00 from “nil”. The value was changed to R8 300 000.00. This decision of the Board was in respect of the Municipal Valuer Decision on OBJ-2206737 which changed the value of the subject property from nil to R9 700 000.00. 3.23    No decision has been made in respect of Section 52 Review of OBJ-444422. [4]        The parties agreed that the following are the issues to be determined by the court: 4.1       Whether the correct decision is being challenged in this application. The Court to identify the relevant decision/s and decision makers, and accordingly, whether and which decision is to be reviewed; 4.2       Whether the decision of the First Respondent dated 26 September 2018 affected the category of the subject property; 4.3       Whether the Applicant’s review in terms of PAJA was instituted timeously and whether a case for condonation is made out in the papers; 4.4       Whether internal remedies provided in the Rates Act have been exhausted, being an appeal in terms of Section 54 of the Rates Act; 4.5       Whether the relief sought in prayer 4 of the notice of motion is competent in the light of the lapsing of the City’s 2013 GVR on 30 June 2018 in terms of Section 32 of the Rates Act, and if so, whether the categorization of the subject property by the First Respondent is reviewable; 4.6       Subject to a finding on the competence of prayer 4, whether the relief in prayer 5 and 6 are not precluded by Section 27(1) read with Sections 12, 13, 26 and 28 of the Rates Act; 4.7       Whether the Board was authorized to take a decision on the category of properties in terms of the review process outlined in Section 52 of the Rates Act; 4.8       Whether the Applicant had knowledge of the decision of the First Respondent to amend the category of the subject property on 26 September 2018 prior to 7 June 2022, and in the circumstances, whether the date of knowledge is factually established and if so, the effect of Section 27(2) read with Section 78(4) of the Rates Act on the dates of the Applicant’s liability for payment of rate; 4.9       Who should be liable for the costs of this application. [5] The Applicant avers that the Respondents were obliged to file the record of the decision(s) in terms of Rule 53(1)(b) but only filed a record consisting of only one page. The Appellant’s legal representatives  requested the respondents to file a full record on three different occasions and eventually the respondents replied indicating that the Appeal Board does not intend to file any further information. [6]        The Applicant further avers that the respondents attached documents to their answering affidavit which should have formed part of the record. The notification of the outcome of the objection dated 4 April 2014 attached to the answering affidavit, does not form part of the Applicants documents as it was not part of the record. Similarly, the reference to Objection OBJ444422 was not part of the record and was also not part of the founding documents of the Applicant. [7]        The Applicant avers that it was forced to make out its case in the replying affidavit because of the failure of the respondents to file a complete record despite reasonable requests. [8]        The Applicant submits that it uses its immovable properties, including the subject property for conducting its operations and the furtherance of its purpose, being a religious association. The Applicant also uses the property for residential purposes where some of its office bearers reside. [9]        The Applicant avers that the crux of this matter revolves around the impugned decision taken by the Appeal Board (first respondent) on 26 September 2018, apparently taken in terms of Section 52 of the Rates Act, which decision effectively changed the categorization of the subject property from religious to agricultural residential. The Applicant through its legal representative, made submissions in court  that the decision is illegal as section 52 does not provide for the Valuation Appeal Board to change the category of a property. [10]     The Applicant contends that this decision prejudices it, as it is now required to pay the increased property rates to the Municipality due to the change of category, albeit that the effect of the decision only became evident during receipt of the increased rate account during August 2019. The Applicant further contends that it was not informed what led to the increased rates liability, who took the decision and when the decision was taken. [11]     The Applicant avers that it repeatedly sought clarity from the Municipality and only received confirmation on 7 June 2022, that the category change of the subject property from religious to agricultural residential came about as a result of a decision of the Appeal Board, which decision emanated from a compulsory review undertaken by the Appeal Board during September 2018. [12]      The Applicant contends that up until August 2019, it was not required to pay property rates in respect of the subject property due to the exemption applicable to the property in terms of the provisions of Section 17(i) of the Municipal Property Rates Act (MPRA). [13]      The Applicant avers that the zoning of the subject property is an agricultural holding. The Applicant further avers that a property must be categorized by the Municipality Valuer in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the MPRA for inclusion in a valuation roll in accordance with the permitted use of the property, the actuaries of the property or a combination of both. The zoning of a property is but one of the factors which a Valuer should have considered when he valued the property. [14]      The second and third respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), contend that the first respondent never took a decision to change the category of the subject property as alleged by the applicant. [15]      The respondents aver that the 2013 GVR, with a valuation date of 27 May 2013, reflected the subject property with category of agricultural residential and a Market Value of nil. An objection by the City in terms of Section 53 (1) of the Rates Act, to the category entry in the 2013 GVR resulted in the Market Value of the subject property being changed to R9 700 000.00 with an effective date of 01 June 2013. The decision with regard to the category of the property and the value thereof was that of the Municipal Valuer. [16]      The respondents further aver that the outcome of the objection in terms of Section 53(1) of the Rates Act , dated the 4 April 2014 was addressed to the applicant. This 4 April 2014 notice formed the basis of the Board’s discissions on the 26 September 2018. The respondents submit that the applicant was notified of the section 52 review process and its right to appeal. [17]      The respondents aver that a revised Municipal Valuer Decision also in terms of Section 53 of the Rates Act, dated 10 November 2015 on the 2013 GVR resulted in a change in the category of the property of the subject property from “ agricultural residential” to “ religious” with an effective date of 01 July 2013. The value of the property remained at R9 700 000.00. [18]      The respondents further aver that the 10 November 2015 notice was not included in the Objection Pack that served before the first respondent on 26 September 2018. [19]      The respondents further aver that the third respondent has no power to alter the decision of the municipal valuer or that of the Board. The applicant misconceives the role and status of the third respondent in relation to entries in or omission from the GVR. [20]      The respondents submit that the reliefs sought by the applicant in prayers 2 and 3 are incompetent since the first respondent never took a decision to change the category of the subject property and the third respondent has no legal authority to overturn the decision of either the municipal valuer (second respondent) or that of the Board (first respondent). [21]      The respondents contend that the applicant relies on a letter dated the 25 th February 2022 from the Senior Manager : Valuation Services directed to the Office of the Ombudsman, which unfortunately incorrectly indicated that the decision to change the category of the subject property was done by the appeal board during a Section 52 compulsory review. This incorrect letter cannot be taken as a decision of the VAB. [22]      The applicant then noted an objection with reference number OBJ 444422, and no decision has been made in respect of Section 52 Review of OBJ-444422. [23]     It is trite that in motion proceedings an applicant is only allowed to make out a case in exceptional circumstances, see Herbstein & Van Winsen: The Civil Practice of the High Courts of South Africa Fifth Edition, Volume 1 pages 439-440. [24]      The applicant contended that the respondents did not provide a full record and only produced most of the documents in their answering affidavit.  The respondents did not oppose this submission by the applicant, and the court also observed this submission to be correct. The exceptional circumstances in this case are that the respondents failed to provide a complete record despite numerous requests, to enable the applicants to make out its case in the founding affidavit. The applicant’s argument finds favour with me, and I accepts that the applicant had no option but to make out its case in the replying affidavit. [25]      The respondents contend that the applicant did not make out a case for condonation for the late filling of the review. The decision of the first respondent was communicated to the applicant on 4 April 2014 and there is no explanation for the unreasonable delay in instituting this review. [26]      The applicant on the other hand made a submission in court that the impugned decision of the first respondent of the 26 September 2018 did not prejudice them as they were not charged the increased rate during that time. The applicant further avers that it only became aware of the decision during August 2019 when it received an increased property rate account. The reason for this rate increase was not attached to the rate account. [27]      The applicant further avers that the first official communication it received stating the reasons for the increase is an email dated 20 April 2022 as well as a letter report dated the 25 February 2022. Both correspondences indicated that the decision to change the category as well as the value, were that of the first respondent. The applicant also received confirmation on 7 June 2022 that the category change of the subject property form religious to agricultural residential came as result of a decision of the Appeal Board, which decision emanated from a compulsory review undertaken by the Appeal Board during September 2018. [28]      The applicant submits that it launched the review application on 22 September 22 which is well within the 180 days prescribed by PAJA. Furthermore, the applicant avers that on the notice of motion as well as the founding affidavit, an application has been made for an extension of the time period for the institution of the review proceedings in terms of section 9 of PAJA. [29] Section 9 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (PAJA) provides as follows: “ Variation of time (1) The period of – (a) … (b) 90 days or 180 days referred to in sections 5 and 7 may be extended for a fixed period, by agreement between the parties or, failing such agreement, by a court or tribunal on application by the person or administrator concerned. (2) The court or tribunal may grant an application in terms of subsection (1) where the interests of justice so require.” [30]      I have perused the documents and have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and I am satisfied that the applicant did make an application for the extension of the time periods in terms of section 9 of PAJA. There is no prejudice that the respondents will suffer if the application is granted, and I am of the view that the interests of justice require that the application for the extension of time period in terms of section 9 of PAJA be granted. [31] I now turn my attention to the impugned decision of the 26 September 2018. The applicant contends that this decision is illegal as the VAB illegally changed the category of the subject property. The respondents on the other hand aver that the VAB did not make such a decision as their decision was a compulsory review in terms of section 52 of the Municipal Property Rates Act as the Municipal Valuer had changed the value of the subject property from nil to R9 700 000.00. [32]      Section 52 of the Municipal Property Rates Act No 6 of 2004 provides as follows: “ Compulsory review of decisions of municipal valuer (1) If a municipal valuer adjusts the valuation of a property in terms of section 51 (c) by more than 10 per cent upwards or downwards- (a) the municipal valuer must give written reasons to the municipal manager; and (b) the municipal manager must promptly submit to the relevant valuation appeal board the municipal valuer’s decision, the reasons for the decision and all relevant documentation, for review. (2) An Appeal board must- (a) review any such decision; and (b) either confirm, amend or revoke the decision. (3)       If the appeal board amends or revokes the decision, the chairperson of the appeal board and the valuer of the municipality must ensure that the valuation roll is adjusted in accordance with the decisions taken by the appeal board.” [33]      Section 53 of the Municipal Property Rates Act provides as follows: (1)       A municipal valuer must, in writing, notify every person who has lodged an objection, and also the owner of the property concerned if the objector is not the owner, of – (a)       the valuer’s decision in terms of section 51 regarding the objection; (b)       any adjustments made to the valuation roll in respect of the property concerned; and (c)        whether section 52 applies to the decision. (2)       Within 30 days after such notification, such objector or owner may, in writing apply to the municipal manager for the reasons for the decision. A prescribed fee must accompany the application. (3)       The municipal valuer must, within 30 days after receipt of such application by the municipal manager, provide reasons for the decision to the applicant, in writing.” [34]      Section 54 of the Municipal Property Rates Act provides as follows: “ Right to appeal (1) An appeal to an appeal board against a decision of a municipal valuer in terms of section 51 may be lodged in the prescribed manner with the municipal manager concerned by – (a) and who is not satisfied with the decision of the municipal valuer; (b) An owner of a property who is affected by such a decision, if the objector was not the owner; or (c) The council of the municipality concerned, if the municipality’s interests are affected. (2) An appeal by – (a) an objector must be lodged within 30 days after the date on which the written notice referred to in section 53(1) was sent to the objector or, if the objector has requested reasons in terms of section 53(2), within 21 days after the day on which the reasons were sent to the objector; (b) an owner of such property must be lodged within 30 days after the date on which the written notice referred to in section 53(1) was sent to the owner or, if the owner has requested reasons in terms of section 53(2), within 21 days after the day on which the reasons were sent to the owner; or (c) a municipal council must be lodged within 30 days after the date on which the decision was taken. (3) (a)       A municipal manager must forward any appeal lodged in terms of subsection (1) to the chairperson of the appeal board in question within 14 days after the end of the applicable period referred to in subsection (2). (b) The chairperson of an appeal board must, for purposes of considering any appeals, convene a meeting of the appeal board within 60 days after an appeal has been forwarded to the chairperson in terms of paragraph (a). (c) When an appeal is forwarded to the chairperson of an appeal board in terms of paragraph (a), a copy of the appeal must also be submitted to the municipality concerned. (d) An appeal lodged in terms of this section does not defer a person’s liability for payment of rates beyond the date determined for payment.” [35]      Section 57 of the Municipal Property Rates Act provides as follows: Functions The functions of an appeal board are – (a) To hear and decide appeals against the decisions of a municipal valuer concerning objections to matters reflected in, or omitted from, the valuation roll of a municipality in the area for which it was established in terms of section 56; and (b) To review decisions of a municipal valuer submitted to it in terms of section 52.” [36]      In the matter of City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another v Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Johannesburg and Another (41468/18) [2013] ZAGPJHC 724 (15 June 2023) at [19] - [22] the court held that: “ [19] The provisions of s 52 of the Rates Act are clear, plain and unambiguous. For the VAB to act in terms of s 52 there must be a consideration of the value of the property by the Valuer after an objection has been launched which consideration adjusts the value of the property by more than 10 per cent upward or downward. Section 52 is couched in a simple way that, once the Valuer reduces or increases the value of the property by more than 10 per cent, that the decision of the Valuer is subject to an automatic review by the VAB. Differently put, s 52 is there to check that the Valuer does not abuse his power but is only actuated by 10 per cent increase or decrease in the value of the property and not a change in the category of the property. [20] I am in full agreement with the respondents that, the legislature intended that the two processes be available in resolving the disputes regarding the municipal rates - hence the processes provided for in s 52 which is the automatic review which is triggered by the change in the value of the property by the value by more than 10 per cent upward or downward and s 54 which is the appeal process open to parties (including the municipality) who are aggrieved by the decision of the Valuer in the categorizing valuation of the property.  Section 57 makes it plain that the functions of the appeal board add to here and decide appeals against the decisions of the Valuer concerning objections and to review decisions of the valuer submitted in terms of s 52. [21] I am therefore of the respectful view that, to ascribe any other interpretation to s 52 other than that it is for a compulsory ex parte  automatic review without any appearances and representations, and is only actuated when the value of the property has been changed by the Valuer by more than 10 per cent upward or downward, would be creating and or conferring power for the VAB which it does not have in terms of the legislation. It is trite that a functionary, as a creature of statute, has the power as conferred upon it by the statute creating it and is limited to exercising only those powers which are conferred upon it expressly or impliedly by the statute creating it.” [22] In Affordable Medicine Trust and Another v Minister of Health and Another (CCT 27/04) [2005] ZACC 3 ; 2006 (3) SA 247 (CC) the Constitutional Court stated the following regarding the power of functionaries: “ Paragraph 49: The exercise of public power must therefore comply with the Constitution, which is the supreme law, and the doctrine of legality, which is part of that law, is one of the constitutional controls which the exercise of public power is regulated by the Constitution. It entails that both the legislature and the executive are constrained by the principle that they may exercise no power and perform no function beyond that conferred upon them by law. In this sense the Constitution entrenches the principle of legality and provides the foundation for the control of public power.” [37]     Turning to the facts of this matter, after careful consideration of the documents before me and the submissions made in court by the legal representatives of the parties, it is clear that there are two distinct decisions at play. [38]      The first decision resulted from an objection by the City (third respondent) in terms of section 53(1) of the Municipal Property Rates Act with reference number OBJ - 220637,  after the 2013 GVR was published, wherein the category of the subject property was changed by the Municipal valuer from religious to agricultural residential with a value of nil. This objection resulted in the Municipal valuer then amending the value from of the subject property from nil to R9 700 000. [39]      The outcome of the decision of the objection under reference number OBJ – 220637 was communicated to the to the applicant in a letter dated 4 April 2014. The applicant contends that it only became aware of this letter on 7 June 2022 when it was sent to it by an official of the third respondent via email. [40]      The second decision is the one of the 26 September 2018, which resulted from an automatic review by the VAB in terms of section 52 because the value of the subject property was amended by the municipal valuer from nil to R 9 700 000.00. [41]      To echo the views of my brother Twala J in the matter of City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another v Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Johannesburg and Another (41468/18) [2013] ZAGPJHC 724 (15 June 2023), section 52 of the Municipal Rates Act is crystal clear. This section  is only triggered when the value of the property has been changed by the  Municipal Valuer by more than 10 per cent upward or downward. To attribute any other interpretation to section 52 would be creating and or conferring power for the VAB which it does not have in terms of the legislation. This was the case in this matter before me, as the automatic ex parte section 52 review was triggered by the decision of the Municipal Valuer to change the value of the subject property from nil to R 9 700 000.00. The VAB exercised the power and diligently performed its duties as prescribed by the law and complied with the Constitution as to do otherwise would have offended the Constitution. [42]      The decision that changed the category of the subject property was that of the Municipal valuer which became clear when the 2013 GVR was published. It is unfortunate that the applicant chose to rely on a letter from an official in the Municipal Valuer’s section which stated the facts incorrectly. This letter can however not be morphed into a decision of the VAB. [43]      I am of the view that the applicant unfortunately is challenging the wrong decision, and its application cannot be sustained. [44]      Under the circumstances I make the following order: 1. The time period for the institution of the review proceedings is extended in terms of the provisions of Section 9 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, No 3 of 2000 . 2. The application is dismissed with costs LENYAI J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appearances Counsel for Applicant : Adv JS Rautenbach Instructed by : Phatshoane Henney Attorneys Counsel for 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents : Adv S Ogunronbi Instructed by : Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys Inc Date of hearing : 06 August 2024 Date of Judgement : 17 December 2024 sino noindex make_database footer start