The Merafong City Local Municipality in Gauteng tried to convince the Constitutional Court that it should be allowed to levy a surcharge on water used by mines under its jurisdiction. But the main problem facing the municipality was that‚ instead of trying to fight the decision of a minister that it could not levy the charge‚ it simply ignored the minister's ruling.AngloGold Ashanti‚ which operates mines in Merafong‚ appealed to the then Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry Buyelwa Sonjica in 2005 and Sonjica ruled that the municipality should not levy a surcharge on water supplied to the company for industrial use.The municipality believed that such a decision was beyond the minister's powers and kept charging AngloGold Ashanti extra for water.The question faced by the court was whether the municipality was entitled to simply ignore the minister’s decision because it believed the decision was void - without taking any positive steps to have its view confirmed by the courts.The municipality first raised its argument against the minister’s decision when AngloGold Ashanti took it to the Pretoria High Court in 2011 to enforce Sonjica's decision.In 2014‚ the high court dismissed the municipality’s claim that it had the exclusive authority to set water tariffs and held that the minister's decision was lawful and bound Merafong.The municipality appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal but that court ruled last year that even if the minister’s decision was unlawful‚ the municipality could not simply treat it as though it did not exist.At stake in this case are the millions of rand in water surcharges that the mining company had been paying under protest since 2007.Counsel for the municipality‚ Adv. Martin Brassey SC‚ told the court that decisions that at face value fell beyond the powers conferred on a public officer‚ had no validity and could be treated as such until they are set aside on review.He said it did not undermine the structures of certainty if such decisions are ignored.Advocate Noel Graves SC‚ for AngloGold Ashanti‚ said Merafong’s conduct was in conflict with the principle of legality.He said whatever its objections to the minister’s decision‚ the decision fell to be treated as valid and binding on Merafong until reviewed by a court and set aside.Graves said instead‚ Merafong simply chose to treat the decision as void and coerced AngloGold to pay through its power to cut off water services to the company if it did not.The court reserved judgment. - TMG Digital/TMG Courts and Law..