SS Geranuim Mansions v City of Johannesburg and Another (2024/056921) [2025] ZAGPJHC 110 (10 February 2025)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court determined whether the City of Johannesburg's disconnection of electricity to Geranium Mansions was lawful under the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000, particularly section 102(2), which prohibits disconnection when a dispute over specific charges is properly raised.
• The court assessed if the pre-termination notice sent by the City on 3 December 2024 met the legal requirements, including providing adequate time and information for the applicant to address the dispute before disconnection.

Holdings

• The court ordered punitive costs against respondents, criticizing the municipality's legal advisor for relying on anonymized facts without accountability and for continuing 'copy and paste' practices in affidavits.
• The court declared the termination of electricity supply to Geranium Mansions unlawful, finding the pre-termination notice failed to comply with statutory requirements for adequate warning and procedural fairness under section 102(2) of the Municipal Systems Act.
• An interim interdict was granted restraining respondents from terminating services pending resolution of disputes in the main application, recognizing the applicant's statutory right to utility services during ongoing disputes.

Remedies

• Mr. Ngwana, the legal advisor who deposed to the answering affidavit, is invited to make written representations within 20 court days of the publication of this order, providing reasons why he should not be personally ordered to pay 20% of the costs incurred in this application. Failure to file persuasive representations will result in a supplementary order.
• The interdict issued in paragraph 1 does not impact the respondents' right to terminate the municipal supply to the property for amounts accruing from municipal consumption after the date of this order, provided such amounts fall outside the scope of the disputes in the main application.
• The respondents shall pay the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale, jointly and severally, with the one paying the other to be absolved. This cost order is punitive due to the unlawful disconnection of services and the respondents' procedural misconduct.
• The respondents are interdicted and restrained from terminating the supply of electricity to Units 1 to 17 of sectional scheme Geranium Mansions, located at [address], pending the resolution of the disputes in the main application under case number 2024/056921. This interdict does not affect the respondents' right to terminate the municipal supply in respect of amounts accruing after the date of this order and falling outside the disputes.

Legal Principles

• A punitive cost order was awarded against the respondents because the electricity disconnection was unlawful. The court also highlighted the respondents' repeated use of 'copy and paste' affidavits and failure to comply with judicial warnings, further justifying the cost sanction under principles of accountability and procedural fairness.
• The judge rejected the respondents' procedural objections to the supplementary affidavit, stating that form should not override substance. The affidavit was admitted to ensure justice, as the technical defect did not justify disregarding the applicant's claims.
• The court scrutinized the City of Johannesburg's pre-termination notice and disconnection procedures, finding them non-compliant with statutory requirements (Systems Act section 102) and the municipality's own by-laws. The review focused on proportionality, adequacy of notice, and adherence to the law in debt collection measures.
• The court applied the principle of interim injunctions under section 102(2) of the Municipal Systems Act, ruling that consumers have the right to utility services during disputes if statutory requirements are met. This included proper communication of the dispute, specificity in contested charges, and sufficient time for the applicant to seek legal recourse.

Precedent Name

• South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited v South African Broadcasting Corporation Pension Fund and Others
• 39 Van der Merwe Street Hillbrow CC v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others
• Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others
• Millu v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another
• Robindale Five (Pty) Limited v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• there must be a dispute, in the sense of a consumer, on the one hand, and the municipality, on the other, advancing irreconcilable contentions; ... the dispute must be properly raised, which would require, at least, that it be properly communicated to the appropriate authorities at the municipality and that this be done in accordance with any mechanism and appeal procedure provided in terms of section 95(f) of the Systems Act for the querying of accounts;
• The pre-termination notice (dated 3 December 2024), relied upon by the first respondent in this matter does not comply with: [15.1] the 7 day period in which to remedy the breach as provided for in the credit control and debt collection policy I was referred to; [15.2] the fourteen day advance warning in a final demand notice referred to in 39 Van der Merwe Street Hillbrow CC;
• Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 - section 102 -- City of Johannesburg's Credit Control and Debt Collection By-laws - dispute raised - consumers have the right to utility services pending resolution of disputes if they meet statutory requirements.