- Sakeliga, the Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa and six commercial farming businesses challenged water charges that included amounts they said were more than three years old and could not be properly verified.
- Judge Raubenheimer declined to rule on prescription because no summons had been issued to recover the alleged debts.
- The Department of Water and Sanitation must provide complete itemised statements and relevant invoices within 60 days so the farmers can verify the amounts being claimed.
Commercial farmers who faced disputed water use charges have secured an order requiring the Department of Water and Sanitation to provide detailed records supporting the amounts it says they owe, although their broader attempt to have the debts declared prescribed was dismissed.
Sakeliga NPC, the Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa, and six commercial farming businesses approached the High Court in Pretoria over outstanding water charges, some of which they said dated back more than three years. They argued that the information provided by the department did not allow them to establish how the alleged debts had been calculated.
The group wanted the court to declare that water use charges under the National Water Act are subject to the three-year prescription period in the Prescription Act. They also sought an order compelling the department to provide detailed statements and invoices relating to the amounts claimed from the affected farmers.
The farmers said statements from the department showed balances allegedly owing, but did not provide enough information to establish the underlying transactions. They said they needed details of the actual water used, the periods covered by the charges, and the rates applied to calculate the amounts.
Farmers said uncertainty affected their businesses
The applicants argued that the lack of clear information made it difficult to determine whether the amounts being claimed were accurate and whether particular debts had prescribed.
They also said the department was trying to collect outstanding debts through debt collection agencies and attorneys, including amounts that allegedly originated more than three years earlier. The farmers argued that this uncertainty affected the planning, budgeting, and operation of their businesses.
The department opposed the application and argued that the prescription issue was not yet properly before the court. They pointed out that no summons had been issued against the third to eighth applicants to recover the alleged debts, and said prescription would only arise once a claim had been instituted and the farmers raised prescription as a defence.
Judge refuses to decide prescription before summons
Acting Judge M Raubenheimer found that the prescription issue could not be determined at this stage because no summons had been issued against the farmers.
Judge Raubenheimer explained, “Considering prescription before that stage would amount to an academic or hypothetical exercise.” The applicants therefore did not obtain the declaration they sought on the three-year prescription period.
The judgment makes clear that the prescription question would arise only when summons were issued and the applicants raised prescription as a defence. The court therefore declined to decide the issue before a specific claim had been brought against the farmers.
Department must provide records behind its claims
The dismissal of the prescription application did not resolve the separate issue of whether the farmers were entitled to proper information about the debts being claimed from them.
Judge Raubenheimer found, “The respondents are obliged to provide the applicants with sufficient information to allow them to confirm the accuracy of the water use charges.” The information must allow the farmers to establish the water usage, the rates applied, the period during which the usage was measured, and any other charges included in the amounts claimed.
The judgment further states, “The information contained in the notification of indebtedness must be of such a nature that it provides the applicants with information they can use to determine the water usage, the rates used to determine the usage, the period of measurement of the usage, and any other charges.” This information is necessary for the farmers to establish the basis of the amounts being claimed.
Department given 60 days to produce invoices
The court ordered the Director-General and the Department of Water and Sanitation to provide the applicants with complete itemised statements together with all relevant invoices for the accounts identified in the application. The documents must cover all amounts claimed to be owing and must be provided within 60 calendar days from the date of the order.
The application for declaratory relief was dismissed, while each party was ordered to pay its own costs. The order leaves the prescription issue open should the department later institute proceedings to recover the alleged debts and the farmers raise prescription as a defence.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
