By Gcina Ntsaluba
Concerns are mounting over the appointment of Kanyisa property and management services for the crucial five-yearly municipal property valuation process in Makhanda. This valuation directly impacts residents and businesses as it forms the basis for property rate calculations.
At a recent gathering, questions were raised regarding the legitimacy of Kanyisa’s appointment, which has led to challenges in addressing potentially flawed valuations.
Some of the mistakes in the valuations include incorrect owner names, sectional title complexes being left out, and some properties being valued at a tenth of their value.
It was also revealed that due diligence conducted indicated that the company was in the process of being de-registered on the official company register at the time of their selection.
“It does not justify that the taxpayer should have paid them over R10 million.”
“We believe that the public protector will be able to uncover how that man will benefit other individuals. We believe that an organised criminal syndicate is operating in our municipality,” said Lungile Mxube, the leader of the Makana Citizens Front (MCF).
He encouraged members of the public to attend public meetings such as the Integrated development plan (IDP) meetings, which allow communities to participate in identifying their most important needs.
“On May 30th, we must adopt a new budget for 2025 and 2026. Only through those meetings can we be informed about what the municipality is planning and hold the councillors, the mayor, the speaker, the municipal manager, and the CFO accountable,” said Mxube.
The de-registration of Kanyisa was brought to the council’s attention on January 30th. Following this, the MCF formally notified the municipal manager, outlining the situation and the potential implications. However, it appears this letter went unanswered.
MCF Councillor Phillip Machanick said a meeting was held to discuss the legal ramifications.
“Legal counsel, Bryn Brody, reportedly advised that a court challenge could potentially overturn the entire valuation process due to the questions surrounding the appointed company. Despite this, concerns were raised about potential unintended consequences, such as the municipality appointing a new evaluator who might assign even higher property values,” he said.
“In light of these concerns, a decision was made to pursue a different approach. Instead of a legal challenge against the entire process, residents and businesses were encouraged to individually object to any property valuations they deemed incorrect.”
“However, it has emerged that a significant number of property owners were unable to meet the deadline for submitting their objections through this facilitated process. This leaves many questioning how their concerns will be addressed and what recourse they have regarding potentially inaccurate property valuations,” said Machanick.
Makana Municipality had not responded to questions at the time of publication.
