(dissenting).
[¶ 23.] Before this Court addresses issues such as the optimum course of action for refund mechanisms, it must first determine if there is jurisdiction for the trial court to implement a particular proposal such as a class action.
[¶ 24.] City argues that because it is a government entity, sovereign immunity precludes certification of a class against it. Article III § 27 of the South Dakota Constitution provides: “The Legislature shall direct by law and in what manner and in what court suit may be brought against the state.” In Lick v. Dahl, this Court considered whether a class action could be maintained by a taxpayer against a county for the recovery of “refunds attributable to an alleged illegal tax.” 285 N.W.2d 594, 599, 10 A.L.R.4th 645, 652 (S.D.1979).7 *528This Court, after reviewing ease law on the issue, concluded, “since class actions are not expressly provided for in either [tax refund] statute, SDCL 15-6-23 cannot be employed in suits for tax refunds.” Id. at 600. Cf. Van Emmerik v. State, 298 N.W.2d 804 (S.D.1980) (allowing action by utility retailers against state for tax refund based on authority in SDCL 10-45-53).
[¶ 25.] The fundamental reason is twofold. Most obviously, SDCL 15-6-23 contains no express language abrogating sovereign immunity. Id. Nor is any identified by this Court. Secondly, any such abrogation language, if existent, would be void, as SDCL 15-6-23 is not a statute, but only a procedural rule adopted by this Court.8 Article III § 23 does not authorize abrogation of sovereign immunity by rule of this Court.
[¶ 26.] Thus, I would reverse the trial court with instructions to deny class certification. For the above reasons I respectfully dissent.
. Likewise, several other courts have held that statutory procedures for obtaining refunds of unlawfully exacted taxes, such as those implemented by City, are exclusive remedies. See Propriety of Class Action in State Courts to Recover Taxes, 10 A.L.R.4th 655, 663 (1981) (citing Lick, 285 N.W.2d 594, Ellsworth Freight Lines, Inc. v. State Tax Com., 651 S.W.2d 130 (Mo.1983); Lilian v. Commonwealth, 467 Pa. 15, 354 A.2d 250 (1976); Charles v. Spradling, 524 S.W.2d 820 (Mo.1975); Henderson v. Carter, 229 Ga. 876, 195 S.E.2d 4 (1972); Hooks v. Comptroller of Treasury, 265 Md. 380, 289 A.2d 332 (1972); Hansen v. Lincoln County, 188 Neb. 461, 197 N.W.2d 651 (1972)). Those courts reasoned that states had waived their sovereign immunity only to the extent that persons seeking refunds complied with the statutory proce*528dures, which did not include class actions. Id.
. SD RC, Rule 23 was adopted by Supreme Court Order # 2 on March 31, 1969, and became effective July 1, 1969. The only subsequent legislative amendments to this Court rule occurred in 1982 and 1985 when the Legislature made it even more explicit that class actions could not be maintained against the state, itself, for recovery of certain taxes. See 1982 Sudses. ch. 99 § 9; 1985 Sudses. ch. 15 § 31. However, these amendments are consistent with Lick and in no way lessened Lick's rationale by enacting language that would result in an abrogation of sovereign immunity against a municipality. Article V § 12 of the South Dakota Constitution authorizes the Legislature to amend or change the rules of this Court.