DO DEVELOPMENTS WITH ‘LIFESTYLE CENTRES’ ATTRACT COMMERCIAL TARIFF RATES?
Malakite Body Corporate and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (A2023/050651) [2024] ZAGPJHC 397 (15 April 2024)
The argument that a gym and restaurant facility within a residential development, restricted for use by occupants and owners, is ancillary to the development’s main residential purpose and that the electricity supply should be charged at a domestic tariff, is attractive but not convincing, said the court. In this matter, the court stated that tariff determination is based on the nature and usage of facilities, rather than a development’s internal administration or intent. This formed the basis for the City of Johannesburg’s determination of its tariff policy, by-laws, and electricity regulations. Therefore, the City validly applied a commercial tariff for the electricity supplied to the development. The development’s management body did not take up the option to apply for separated tariffs for the different uses of land in the development due to its belief that this was not necessary.
Developers and management bodies of such schemes are well advised to engage with the local authority in the area of a proposed development to identify which options are available for tariff determination in such mixed-use developments.
The judgment below explains the reasoning.
The judgment can be viewed here
Summary of the Judgment
TRUSTEE OF FAMILY TRUST REMOVED AFTER DODGING RESPONSIBILITY BY GIVING HIS MOM POWER OF ATTORNEY
Brand v Brand and Another (16230/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 116 (26 April 2024)
If one peruses the weekly lists of judgments handed down in our High Courts, it is striking how many matters deal with rows arising within family trusts. There are likely to be many more that do not reach the courts, whether due to lack of funds or other reasons. This matter highlights a complaint that is often heard in these cases: A ‘dominant’ trustee neglected his duty to act in the best interests of the trust (in this instance, by leaving the matters in the hands of his mother in a Power of Attorney to that effect), and snubbed the other trustee’s requests for access to meetings and records. The court ordered the removal of the trustee and, sensibly, the appointment of two additional qualified and independent trustees. Costs in the matter were loaded onto the shoulders of the errant trustee, to be paid from his personal account.
The judgment below is a valuable reminder that considerable care should go into directing, in the trust’s founding document, who is eligible to hold the position of a trustee.
