- The Public Protector determined that the municipality did not fix billing and registration errors, even with clear ownership proof.
- The complainant was wrongly billed for vacant land and experienced service interruptions connected to another owner’s account.
- A mediated settlement resulted in a land swap, corrected accounts, and financial relief.
Bheki Mbuyiseni Zulu was billed for the wrong property and had his services cut off, despite legally buying and registering his home. Even after repeatedly presenting proof of ownership, the City of Ekurhuleni did not update its records.
This left him caught in a system that treated his home as vacant land while tying his actual residence to someone else's account. Zulu purchased and registered the property in November 2021. However, the home he lived in was built on a different piece of land than what was shown on his title deed.
His registered portion was marked as a vacant lot in the municipal system, while the land where he actually lived was in another person’s name. This mismatch between the title deed, municipal records, and physical location led to the conflict.
As a result, Zulu faced vacant land tariffs for property not reflecting his actual use and was held responsible for overdue payments linked to the portion registered to another owner. This billing confusion led to service interruptions, affecting access to basic amenities. Despite numerous attempts and submissions of ownership documents, the municipality didn’t adjust its records.
Findings on municipal failures
The Public Protector traced the issue back to historical land use and building issues passed down from the former Nigel Town Council. These mistakes were carried into the current municipal systems without resolution.
Addressing the municipality’s actions, the Public Protector noted that, "The municipality had relied on incorrect internal records instead of registered title deeds, contrary to the Deeds Registries Act."
The investigation also revealed that different municipal systems failed to work together properly. The report states, “The municipality did not reconcile deeds office records, GIS and billing systems, and actual occupation and service consumption.”
The consequences of this failure were significant. The Public Protector noted, “This led to incorrect billing, unjustified service suspensions, inaccurate property rates and service charges, and ongoing harm to both property owners.”
Even after Zulu provided clear ownership proof, no corrective steps were taken. The findings clearly stated, “The municipality’s inaction after receiving clear documentary proof amounted to mismanagement, improper behavior, and failure to fulfill its responsibilities under various municipal laws.”
Intervention and outcome
Instead of imposing strict penalties, the Public Protector facilitated a resolution through alternative dispute resolution. This method aimed to fix the root problem while offering immediate relief.
During this process, the municipality recognised its administrative mistakes and agreed to a practical solution. The parties arrived at a land swap plan to align legal ownership with actual occupation. Zulu would receive the portion with the residential dwelling, while the vacant land would return to its rightful owner.
The municipality also promised to correct municipal accounts, align billing with actual use, write off past debt and interest, and contribute to conveyancing and transfer costs. These actions aimed to restore fairness and ensure that the billing system reflected reality.
A settlement agreement containing these terms was signed on 27 January 2026.
Conclusion of the Public Protector
The Public Protector confirmed that the complaint was valid and stemmed from systemic administrative failures. Reflecting on the dispute's cause, the report stated, “The complaint was well-founded and arose from mismanagement related to poor record keeping, weak internal controls, and failure to align municipal systems with registered ownership.”
The report also addressed the successful resolution of the matter. "The dispute was resolved through mediation, restoring legal certainty, fair billing, and service delivery," the report read
The matter was finalised under Section 182(1)(b) of the Constitution after implementing the agreed corrective actions.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
