Precision Meters (Pty) Ltd v South African National Accreditation System and Another (2025/135243) [2025] ZAWCHC 500 (28 October 2025)

Case Note

Precision Meters (Pty) Ltd v South African National Accreditation System and Another
Case No: 2025-135243
Heard: 11 September 2025
Delivered: 28 October 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications for the standards of accreditation in regulatory compliance concerning the verification of measuring instruments under the Legal Metrology Act. It also addresses the complexities of interacting public entities' decisions and has precedent value on the requirements for interim interdicts against state organs. The judgment highlights the criteria for establishing urgency and the prima facie rights essential for granting interim relief, particularly in matters where state power and the applicant’s legal rights collide.

Cases Cited

• ABET Inspection Engineering (Pty) Ltd v the Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa and Another [2018] ZAWCHC 7
• National Treasury and Others v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC)
• Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Vaal River Development Association (Pty) Ltd and Others 2023 (4) SA 325 (CC)
• Olympic Passenger Service (Pty) Ltd v Ramlagan 1957 (2) SA 382 (D)

Legislation Cited

• Legal Metrology Act 9 of 2014
• Accreditation for Conformity Assessment, Calibration and Good Laboratory Practice Act 19 of 2006

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court were cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

Precision Meters (Pty) Ltd sought an interim interdict against the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS) and the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (the Specifications Authority) over conflicting accreditation documents affecting its status as a verification body for water meters. The court found in favor of Precision Meters, establishing its entitlement to continue verification activities and directing both respondents to remove misleading information from their publications.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed included: 1. Whether Precision Meters' claims established a prima facie right for the relief sought. 2. The proper application of the urgency criteria for interim interdicts against public entities. 3. The legal status of documents uploaded by SANAS and their effect on Precision Meters’ accreditation.

Held

The court held that Precision Meters met the requirements for an interim interdict by demonstrating a prima facie right, proving the likelihood of irreparable harm, showing the absence of alternative remedies, and establishing that the balance of convenience favored granting the interdict.

THE FACTS

Precision Meters had been accredited by SANAS since 2015 to verify the accuracy of water meters up to 100mm. However, on 31 July 2025, the Specifications Authority issued a limited designation certificate allowing verification only up to 25mm based on erroneous information from SANAS. Despite holding a valid accreditation allowing for verification of meters up to 100mm as recently as May 2025, SANAS later sought to retract that accreditation through unsigned documents uploaded to its website. This chaotic series of events led Precision Meters to seek court intervention to protect its rights and business operations.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions before the court involved: 1. The legitimacy and impact of the conflicting accreditation certificates and documents from SANAS and the Specifications Authority on Precision Meters’ operations. 2. The applicable standard for interim interdicts against an entity of state given the OUTA precedent that calls for a distinguishable degree of demonstrated urgency and clarity in cases involving public power.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the legal framework established by the Legal Metrology Act and the Accreditation Act, which necessitates clarity and adherence to defined processes for the granting and withdrawal of accreditation. It rejected the respondents' attempts to invoke the OUTA standard, clarifying that the nature of the decision-making in this case lacked the polycentric characteristics present in OUTA. Instead, the court applied the standard criteria for obtaining interim interdicts, thereby confirming that while state actions need consideration, they do not inherently require overcoming the heightened “clearest of cases” threshold without sufficient justification.

REMEDY

The court granted an order for the immediate removal of the unsigned accreditation documents from SANAS's website and directed the Specifications Authority to issue an appropriate designation certificate allowing Precision Meters to verify water meters with a nominal bore of up to 100mm. Additionally, costs were awarded in favor of Precision Meters against both respondents.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Several key legal principles were established or reinforced by this judgment: 1. An accreditation certificate must comply with statutory requirements, including proper signature, to be valid. 2. The OUTA precedent does not create an insurmountable barrier for interim interdicts against all organs of state; rather, the nature of the decision-making process must be carefully analyzed. 3. The standard requirements for interim interdicts can prevail in cases lacking the exceptional public power characteristics envisaged in OUTA, fostering a more equitable approach to protecting the rights of applicants against state actions.

This summary encapsulates the critical aspects of the judgment delivered in Precision Meters (Pty) Ltd v South African National Accreditation System and Another, reflecting the interpretations and application of principles pertinent to South African administrative and regulatory law.