The recent judgment delivered by Acting Judge CSP Oosthuizen-Senekal in the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, has raised eyebrows over the conduct of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality regarding its treatment of property owner, Eight Nine Seven Delville (PTY) Limited.
Delville, the owner of Gorg Park in Wattville, contended that Ekurhuleni Municipality unlawfully terminated the electricity supply to its property for debts accrued by previous tenants. Following disputes concerning the billing practices and consumer agreements established between the municipality and the tenants, Delville sought relief through the courts to protect its rights and ensure equitable treatment from the municipality.
The judgments involved multiple instances of disconnection dating back to September 2021, fueled by outstanding debts from former tenants, Aros, Beth & Bev Packaging Products CC, and Rapid Dawn 1186 CC. Notably, the municipal service discrepancies became even more evident following the installation of a bulk meter in April 2022, which aggregated the electricity consumption of all units under a single account.
In the ruling, the court underscored the principle of separation of liability regarding service agreements. Delville maintained that the municipality could not impute the arrears of the defaulting tenants to them since these tenants had separate consumer agreements with the city—an assertion supported by the court’s analysis of the Municipal Systems Act.
According to the judgment, the actions of the Ekurhuleni Municipality were found to contravene essential legal standards, particularly in relation to the process of disconnections without resolving outstanding disputes. The judgment elaborated on how the municipality’s practices of threatening disconnections while disputes remained unresolved may be unlawful and violate the rights of the property owner.
The court issued several interdicts against the Ekurhuleni Municipality, curbing its ability to terminate services until proper resolutions and communications were conducted regarding the disputed accounts. Specific directives were provided, requiring the municipality to address all relevant disputes comprehensively and transparently. Furthermore, punitive costs were awarded against the municipality due to its obstructionist behavior.
