Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 12 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 which it is possible for a Government to make, whether under the name of a tax or under such names as rates, assessments, duties, imposts, excise, licences, fees or toll. In fact s 113(1) of the Constitution defines “tax” to include “duty or due”. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (7ed) defines the word “due” to include “fee” as the concepts connote an obligation or debt owed to some other person. In Alberts v Roodepoort – Maraisburg Municipality 1921 TPD 133 at 136 money compulsorily paid under the name “sanitary fees” charged by a local authority was held to be a “tax”. In Permanent EST Finance Co Ltd v Johannesburg City Council 1952(4) SA 249(W) RAMSBOTTOM J (as he then was) at 259A expressed the view that “to require any person who carries on a business or who owns a dog or a motor car to pay a prescribed fee is … to impose a tax”. So a tax is not any the less a tax because a different name is given to it. In the Australian case of Leake v COT (State)(1934) 36WALR 66 DWYER J at 67 said: “A compulsory contribution or an impost may be nonetheless a tax, though not so called; the distinguishing features of a tax being in fact that it is a compulsory contribution imposed by the sovereign authority on and required from the general body of subjects or citizens.” In Constantinides v Electricity Authority of Cyprus (1982) 3CLR 798 the Supreme Court of Cyprus held that: “an imposition is a tax if it is found to fulfil certain characteristics, namely, (a) it is compulsory and not optional, (b) it is imposed or executed by the competent authority, (c) it must be enforceable by the law, (d) it is imposed for the public benefit and for public