JOHANNESBURG, Gauteng — The City of Johannesburg is facing a major legal battle over its controversial 65.6% water levy hike, with civil action groups arguing the massive tariff increase lacks transparency and lawful justification. Adopted on May 27, 2026, as part of the 2026/2027 financial year budget, the steep increase has prompted AfriForum and WaterCAN to take the matter to court to demand accountability.
At the center of the dispute is the “water demand management levy,” a flat fee of R107 (excluding VAT) charged to every user of the municipal water network. The recent increase raises this monthly fixed charge from approximately R65 to R108. While the city’s budget documents state the levy is designed to encourage responsible water consumption and prevent waste, critics argue it is a blanket charge with no transparency regarding how the generated revenue is utilized.
Marais de Vaal, AfriForum’s advisor for Environmental Affairs, explained that while municipalities are legally permitted to charge residents for water services and infrastructure maintenance, specific legal requirements must be satisfied when recovering costs via a fixed charge. Because residents cannot control or reduce a fixed cost through conservation, the municipality is legally obligated to provide a transparent breakdown of those costs.
Furthermore, AfriForum argues that the city’s public participation process was merely a “tickbox exercise.” De Vaal noted that when the public requested information to understand the levy, the municipality allegedly deflected. Instead of fulfilling its obligation to conduct meaningful public participation, the city reportedly forced residents to use separate, cumbersome legal processes under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).
A major point of contention is the R1.8 billion in revenue the levy is projected to generate. De Vaal raised concerns that these funds are not ring-fenced for critical pipe and reservoir maintenance but instead disappear into the metro’s general budget. He referenced a letter from the Minister of Finance that previously criticized the metro for the financial mismanagement of municipal services, noting that water revenue is pooled into the general budget before it can be allocated to infrastructure.
This lack of financial clarity comes amid severe water infrastructure failures across the city, with many areas currently experiencing water interruptions. Data indicates that Johannesburg’s physical water losses sit at approximately 38%, with non-revenue water at nearly 50%. Both figures far exceed the national municipal targets, which dictate that physical losses should not exceed 15% and non-revenue water should remain below 25%. De Vaal argued that the municipality is losing so much revenue through leaks, illegal connections, and theft that the infrastructure system cannot be maintained sustainably.
The legal challenge has faced procedural hurdles. In June, Judge Casim Musa struck down AfriForum’s urgent application due to a lack of urgency and irreparable harm. However, the matter was recently heard in the normal course on November 2, focusing on the actual merits of whether the levy is lawful. AfriForum is seeking a court order declaring the levy unlawful and invalid, aiming to set a binding precedent that municipalities must be transparent and cannot deflect their statutory responsibilities.
If the court rules in favor of the applicants, potential remedies could include crediting ratepayers for levies already paid since July, pausing the levy entirely, or forcing the municipality to adopt an adjustment budget. Despite the pending judgment, De Vaal advised residents to remain law-abiding and continue paying their municipal bills while actively pressuring the municipality to comply with the law.
A judgment is expected before the end of the year. De Vaal noted that the presiding judge is reportedly being considered for appointment to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which may motivate a swift and efficient resolution.
Attempts to secure comment from the City of Johannesburg regarding the legal challenge and the infrastructure concerns were unsuccessful.