About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAECELLC 19
|
|
Hlazi v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Another (EL2070/2023; 2065/2023) [2023] ZAECELLC 19; 2023 (6) SA 464 (ECEL) (25 July 2023)
FLYNOTES:
CRIMINAL – MUNICIPALITY – Electricity –
Debt
collection procedure
– Pre-paid electricity
purchases – When attempting to purchase electricity, units
received were restricted
in accordance with 80/20 policy –
Contended they were not advised of implementation of policy –
Allege policy
is unlawful for non-compliance with Constitution –
Whether debt collection procedure adopted is lawful –
Applicant
is entitled to be afforded 14-day notice prior to
implementation of any debt collection mechanism – Failure to
afford
applicant 14-day written notice is unlawful –
Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000.
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN
CAPE DIVISION, EAST LONDON CIRCUIT COURT)
In
the matters between:
CASE
NO. EL 2070/2023
LIZIWE HLAZI
Applicant
And
BUFFALO
CITY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY First Respondent
THE
MUNICIPAL MANAGER, BUFFALO CITY
METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Second Respondent
AND
CASE NO. 2065/2023
MELVIN MARIUS DU PLESSIS
Applicant
And
BUFFALO
CITY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY First Respondent
THE
MUNICIPAL MANAGER, BUFFALO CITY
METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
COLLETT
AJ:
INTRODUCTION
[1]
This judgment relates to two applications brought by way of urgency
in terms of
Rule 6(12)
of the
Uniform Rules of Court
(hereinafter referred to as ‘
the Rules’
)
[2]
The applicants in both matters seek relief upon the same factual
basis relating to
the alleged unlawful debt collection procedure
applied to their pre-paid electricity purchases.
[3]
The relief sought in each application is identical, consequently the
applications
were heard as one on the same day.
NATURE OF THE RELIEF
[4]
In each application the applicants seek,
inter alia
, the
undermentioned relief:
‘
4.1
that the debt collection procedure of the respondents applied towards
the applicant’s right
to purchase electricity to the premises
since 3 March 2023 to date, be declared unlawful;
4.2
that the respondents be directed to provide a detailed printout from
their system of all
purchases made by the applicant in respect of the
premises from 1 March 2023 to the date of the finalization of this
application
within 14 (fourteen) days after the date of the final
order being granted;
4.3
that the respondents be directed to refund and/or credit the
applicant all deductions made
in terms of the Debt Collection
Mechanism from the 3
rd
of March 2023 to date of
finalization of the application whereby 80% of all purchases for
pre-paid electricity was allocated towards
purported arrear debt of
the applicant;
4.4
that the respondents be interdicted and restrained from applying
their debt collection procedure
in respect of the applicant’s
property for any amounts until such time as the respondents have
complied with
Section 8(4)
of the Credit Control By-Law
affording the applicant the requisite 14-day notice prior to
implementing any debt collection mechanism;
4.5
that the respondent be directed to lift any partial and/or
restriction to the electricity
supply to the premises within 4 (four)
hours after service of the court order, by the applicant’s
attorneys, at the office
of the second respondent.”
[5]
This court has been inundated with a plethora of like applications
with the particular
facts of each case being substantially similar in
all material respects. Hence the Court considers it unnecessary to
document the
particular facts of each case.
[6]
The crux of the issue is founded in the policy adopted by the
respondents which effectively
applies a debt collection procedure in
which 80% of the money used to purchase pre-paid electricity is
offset against arrears allegedly
due to the respondents and only 20%
of the purchase amount is provided as electricity to the consumer.
This is known as the
‘
80/20 policy’
and will be
referred to as such hereinafter.
[7]
By virtue of the overlap in the issues of both matters, it is agreed
that the judgment
would relate equally to both matters.
URGENCY
[8]
It is trite that an applicant bringing an urgent application in terms
of
Rule 6(12)
of the Rules as read with
12(d)
of the
Eastern Cape Practice Directions
(hereinafter referred to as
‘
the Directions’
) is required to advance grounds
which he or she avers renders the application urgent and persuade the
Court that the extent of
the non-compliance with the Rules is
justified.
[9]
Implicit herein, is that the applicant is enjoined to demonstrate
that reliance in
the normal procedure would result in actual loss and
damage. The deviation from the normal Rules embodied in the Notice of
Motion
must address the degree of urgency.
[1]
[10]
It is incumbent upon an applicant to set forth explicitly the
circumstances rendering the matter
urgent in an endeavour to justify
the curtailment of the normal rules, procedures and time periods. The
overriding consideration
is to satisfy the Court that if the
application is not heard as proposed, substantial redress will not be
afforded in due course.
[11]
An applicant may not be the author if its own urgency by delaying to
the extent that the normal
Rules of court are rendered inappropriate
thus requiring the matter to be heard on an urgent basis.
[2]
[12]
Our Courts have held that the provision of electricity is probably
one of the most important
functions of municipal government
implicating both constitutional rights and entitlement which, by
their very nature, are serious
considerations.
[3]
[13]
In considering a similar issue relating to the provision of
electricity, Lowe J, found that there
was sufficient urgency for the
matter to be heard as such after service on the respondents with an
adapted timeline.
[4]
[14]
In the present applications, neither applicants unduly delayed in
launching their applications
on the basis of urgency and have
adequately documented the prejudice and harm suffered.
[15]
Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the present applications are
sufficiently urgent to
warrant the hearing in terms of
Rule 6(12).
THE FACTUAL MATRIX
[16]
Both applicants aver that they have contractual relationships with
the respondents and accordingly,
by implication, they remain liable
for municipal charges reasonably levied by the respondents. The
respondents are the Buffalo
City Metropolitan Municipality and its
municipal manager. I should refer to the respondents as the
municipality.
[17]
The applicants premise their applications on the provisions of,
inter
alia
, the
Municipal Systems Act No. 32 of 2000
(hereinafter referred to ‘
the Municipal Act’
) and
the
Buffalo City Electricity Supply By-Laws (published in the
Provincial Government Gazette no: 2245 of 10 December 2009)
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the By-law’).
[18]
The applicants allege that during the ‘
past couple of
months’
charges have been levied on their accounts for
which they have not received detailed statements of account.
[19]
They similarly contend that they have pre-paid electricity meters on
their premises for which
they are responsible for the purchase of
electricity according to their needs.
[20]
Both applicants alleged that when attempting to purchase electricity
from agent venders of the
respondents, the units received were
restricted with the balance being allocated to a purported ‘
debt
amount’
in accordance with the
80/20 policy
.
[21]
They contended that they were not advised of the implementation of
the policy and that the same
is unlawful.
[22]
They allege that the
80/20
policy
is unlawful because of
Section
162
of the
Constitution
of South Africa
[5]
provides that a Municipal By-law may only be enforced after it has
been published in the official Gazette of the relevant province.
Accordingly, the applicants allege that the
80/20
policy
is
thus unenforceable. These sections apply to By-laws and not
policy.
[23]
The applicants further submit that even if the
80/20 policy
is
considered lawful,
Section 8(6)
the policy provides for the
implementation thereof after the unsuccessful recovery following upon
a disconnection and blockage
from purchases of electricity.
[24]
The applicants contend that they are entitled to notice of the
intended debt collection and the
respondents are bound to issues
notice in terms of
Section 102(2)
of the
Municipal System
Act
and
Section 8(4)
of the
Credit Control Policy.
[25]
The applicants’ attorneys sent correspondence to the
respondents affording them less than
24 hours’ notice,
inter
alia
, challenging the debt collection policy and requesting
detailed statements of account.
[26]
Conversely, the respondents contend that the credit control policy
incorporating the
80/20
policy
is lawful having been approved and adopted by a Council meeting.
[6]
[27]
The respondents aver that consumers were informed of the
implementation thereof by a public notice
sent to consumers with
their monthly statement, placing a notice on the municipal website
and an article in the Daily Dispatch.
[28]
The respondents allege that they are obliged in terms of
Section
96
of the
Municipal System Act
to collect all money due
and payable to it hence the adoption of the credit control policy.
[29]
The following pivotal issues requiring determination are:
29.1
whether the debt collection procedure adopted by the respondent is
lawful; and
29.2
whether the applicant is entitled to be afforded 14-day notice prior
to the implementation of any debt
collection mechanism.
LEGISLATIVE
IMPERATIVES
[30]
The Local Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000
(‘the
Municipal Act) provides for the provision of municipal services to
the local community and to ensure financially and
economically viable
municipalities.
[31]
The Municipal Act envisaged the need for a harmonious relationship
between municipal structures
and local communities by the
acknowledgement of the reciprocal rights and duties.
[32]
The general duties of a municipality entail,
inter
alia,
prioritizing
the provision of the basic needs of the local community with such
services being ‘
equitable
and accessible’
and provided in a manner conducive to ‘
prudent,
economic, efficient and effective use of available resource’.
[7]
[33]
The municipality is enjoined to adopt and implement a tariff policy
on the levying of fees for
municipal services which must comply with
the Municipal Act and other applicable legislation.
[8]
[34]
It is further legislated that the municipality adopt By-Laws to give
effect to the implementation
and enforcement of its tariff
policy.
[9]
[35]
Section 96
of the Municipal Act provides as follows:
“…
A
municipality –
(a)
must collect all money that is due
and payable to it, subject to this Act and any other applicable
legislation; and
(b)
for
this purpose, must adopt, maintain and implement a
credit
control
and
debt
collection policy
which is consistent with its rates and tariff policies and complies
with the provision of this Act.”
[10]
(my
emphasis)
[36]
Lastly, the Municipal Act provides for the municipality to adopt
By-Laws ‘
to
give effect to the municipality’s credit and debt collection
policy, its implementation and enforcement’.
[11]
[37]
The right to receive electricity as a basic municipal service is
further qualified by the constitutional
and statutory obligations of
the municipality to provide public services in a ‘
financially
sustainable manner
.’
[12]
[38]
Analogous herewith is the development and enforcement of the
debt-collection policies by the
municipality with the importance of
such procedures having been recognised as paramount by our
Courts.
[13]
MUNICIPAL CREDIT
CONTROL
[39]
As mentioned
supra
the By-law governs the electrical supply to
the Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality area.
[40]
The
By-Law
makes provision for a contractual relationship between the consumer
and the municipality in terms of which electricity supply is
provided.
[14]
[41]
In terms thereof, the municipality is entitled to disconnect the
supply of electricity to any
premises subject to 14-days written
notice where,
inter alia:
‘
the
person liable to do so fails to pay any charge due to the
Municipality in connection with any supply of electricity which such
person may have received from the Municipality in respect of such
premises’
[15]
[42]
In accordance with
Section 57(5)
of the
By-Law:
“…
where
a consumer is indebted to the Municipality for electricity consumed
or to the Municipality for any other service supplied
by the
Municipality (including rates) or for any charges previously raised
against the consumer in connection with any service
rendered, the
Municipality may deduct a percentage from the amount tendered to
offset the amount owing to the Municipality, as
set out in the
section 5 agreement for the supply of electricity.”
[34]
The
2022-2023
Credit Control Policy
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘
Credit
Policy
’)
was adopted and approved by the Buffalo City Metropolitan
Municipality Municipal Council on 31 May 2022 in accordance with
the
Municipal
Act
[16]
as read with the
Constitution
.
[17]
[44]
The
Credit
Policy
makes provision for the rendering of monthly accounts for municipal
services, payable on the due date by the consumer.
[18]
[45]
Furthermore, an onus is cast upon the account holder to obtain a copy
of the account should same
not have been received as accounts are
payable on the due date.
[19]
[46]
The municipal manager is enjoined in terms of the
Municipal
Act
as follows:
[20]
“
The
municipal manager or service provider must-
(a)
implement and enforce the
municipality’s credit control and debt collection policy and
any by-laws enacted in terms of section
98;
(b)
in accordance with the credit
control and debt collection policy and any such by-laws, establish
effective administrative mechanisms,
processes and procedures to
collect money that is due and payable to the municipality; and
(c)
…”
[47]
The
Credit
Policy
makes provision for the termination or restriction of the provision
of services when payments are in arrears
[21]
and for the implementation of debt collection and credit control
measures in terms of the policy.
[22]
[48]
Provision is made for the non-implementation of the debt collection
procedures if any specific
amount claimed by the municipality is in
dispute.
[23]
[49]
Section
8
of the
Credit
Policy
provides for the debt collection by the chief financial officer and
for notice to the consumer as follows:
[24]
“
Amounts
on accounts, which remain unpaid after the due date, will be subject
to a fourteen (14) day notice period notification prior
to the
intended debt collection action that will be instituted.”
[50]
The debt collection action to be taken makes provision for a
‘
disconnection of electricity supply’
and the
‘
blocking from the purchase of electricity’.
[51]
The
Credit Policy
in
section 8(6)
outlines the blocking
narrative:
“
(i)
The Municipality will use its discretion in the block type it may
apply to a consumer from
the purchase of electricity on the
electricity prepayment system if the account rendered by the
Municipality is not paid by the
due date as indicated on the monthly
account.
(ii)
The block from purchase of electricity will be for the total amount
outstanding on
the account, including unpaid amounts handed over for
collection to the panel of Collection Agents and not just for a
portion of
the account.
(iii)
The block from purchase of electricity for the non-payment of an
account will be during
the 30-day period following the due date as
stipulated on the monthly account.”
[25]
THE VALIDITY OF THE
CREDIT CONTROL POLICY 2022-2023
[52]
It is apparent from the respondents’ answering affidavit that
the
Credit
Policy
was duly adopted by the council
[26]
in compliance with the provisions of the
Municipal
Act
and the
Constitution.
[53]
Accordingly, the applicants’ assertion that the
Credit
Policy
is unlawful must fail as their promulgation of a policy in
the government gazette is not required.
[54]
The respondents were entitled to invoke the terms and conditions of
the
Credit Policy
in the collection of any arrears that may be
due by the
[55]
Despite the applicants’ bare denial that notification of the
implementation of the credit
policy was not communicated to them,
this would not, in any event vitiate its validity and/or
implementation.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CREDIT CONTROL POLICY
[56]
Our Courts are required to be mindful of encroaching upon the
contractual relationship between
the parties in making a finding that
may effectively be inconsistent with the adopted credit policy and
thus curtail the municipality’s
constitutional and statutory
obligations to provide public services in a financially sustainable
manner.
[27]
[56]
The municipality is obliged to give effect to its
Credit
Policy
in a manner that is consistent with the terms thereof and interpreted
in accordance with both the spirit of the
Municipal
Act
and the guarantees of procedural fairness enshrined in our
Constitution
[28]
as echoed in the
Promotion
of Administrative Justice Act
[29]
(hereinafter
referred to as ‘
PAJA
’).
[57]
The effect of applying the debt collecting mechanisms as postulated
in the Credit Policy will
adversely and materially affect the
applicants’ expectation relating to electrical supply. This
decision is required to be
fair with a generous interpretation being
warranted.
[30]
[58]
The municipality’s contention that written notice to the
applicants is unnecessary due
to the implementation of the
80/20
policy,
is not sustainable.
[59]
Upon a proper reading of
Section 8
, the 14-day notice period
is a precursor to the implementation of debt collection procedures.
It matters not which of the procedures
the municipality elects to
invoke.
[60]
The purpose of the 14-day notice is consistent with procedurally fair
administrative action as
outlined in
Section 3(2)
of
PAJA
.
An interpretation seeking to differentiate between the various debt
collecting procedures regarding notice is unwarranted and
undermines
the purpose and importance of fair administrative action.
[61]
The
80/20
Policy
places a limitation on the provision of electricity supply, albeit by
restricting the amount of units that will be provided to
the
applicant, ‘
materially
and adversely’
affecting their rights, thus justifying the duty of procedural
fairness to be exercised by the municipality.
[31]
[62]
In affording the applicants the 14-day notice period, the respondent
is facilitating the exercise
of the obligation and onus upon the
applicants to seek clarity and/or lodge a dispute in terms of the
Credit Policy
as read with the
Municipal Act.
This is
further consistent with the expectation of reciprocal respect and
co-operation between the parties.
[63]
It is common cause that the applicants did not receive the 14-day
notice of the intended
80/20 Policy
which is clearly
implemented as a leverage tool to encourage compliance with their
contractual obligations.
[64]
The attempt by the municipality in seeking to limit the
interpretation of notice in its
Credit Policy
is both in
conflict with the right to fair administrative action and
disingenuous. Compliance with fair administrative action
must
be strictly enforced by the Court and conduct inconsistent therewith
cannot be condoned.
[65]
I accordingly find that the failure to afford the applicants a 14-day
written notice in terms
of
Section 8(4)
of the
Credit
Policy
is unlawful.
[66]
Both the
Municipal Act
and the
Credit Policy
are
replete with mechanisms whereby the applicants can query or dispute
the charges or amounts claimed by the municipality. They
have, other
than a last minute, short notice letter by their attorneys, failed to
invoke any of these options.
[67]
The Court cannot be rendered a credit control agent by the parties
abrogating their rights or
duties as enunciated in the policy and
legislation. The applicants have internal remedies available to
address their concerns and
conversely, the municipality is enjoined
to give effect thereto.
[68]
Whilst the Courts will not hesitate to uphold constitutional values
and fairness, it is incumbent
upon litigants to first exhaust the
other remedies prior to instituting litigation.
[69]
These applications are but two on the conveyer belt of like
applications swarming the court roll
in circumstance when the
appropriate relief is prescribed in policy and legislation vitiating
the need for this Court’s intervention.
[70]
Regrettably, the quality of the papers serving before this Court in
these and many like matters
has been sacrificed by the immeasurable
quantity thereof.
[71]
By way of illustration, neither of the present founding affidavits
are properly commissioned
and are ‘
cut and paste’
replicas of each other.
[72]
The paucity of facts supporting each applicant’s individual
claim is overshadowed by the
verbose citations of law and policy. The
affidavits smack of a ‘
one
size fits all’
drafting style which leaves one pondering as to the correctness of
the generic ‘
personal
’
facts. Illustrative hereof is the contents at paragraph 56 in both
founding affidavits
[32]
which
are identical. That paragraph reads as follows:
’
56.
It is imperative that I have access to the full supply of
electricity, inter alia, security and
various gates operated by
electricity, alarms, my fridge which is stocked with food and water
used for cooking, cleaning and working.’
[73]
The affidavits are burdened with legislative and policy references,
interpretation, and legal
argument. In essence, and generously
construed, only some 8-pages of the 32-page affidavit bear some
semblance of facts deposed
to by the deponent, albeit in the
customized format that has become the norm in these proceedings. This
is inconsistent with
Rule
6(1)
[33]
which provides that an application be supported by an affidavit ‘
as
to the facts’
as the founding affidavit contains superfluous and irrelevant
information.
[74]
Furthermore, the affidavit is burdened with unnecessary annexures,
none of which are initialled
in accordance with the Practice
Directions.
[34]
[75]
In addition, the applicants failed to file Heads of Argument in
accordance with the
Practice
Directions,
as
both applications exceeded 100 pages and were in effect opposed
applications.
[35]
It deserves
mention that the municipality did file Heads of argument in one of
the applications.
COSTS
785]
Generally, the matter of costs is that the successful party should be
awarded costs unless there are
good grounds, misconduct or
exceptional circumstances to order otherwise.
[76]
A successful litigant may be ordered to forfeit costs for numerous
reasons,
inter alia,
allowing defect in pleadings or causing
unnecessary or frivolous litigation.
[77]
An affidavit containing unnecessary evidence has been held to
constitute sufficient grounds to
disallow costs to a successful
party. Inordinate prolixity in affidavits has been met with
displeasure by the courts and rightly
so.
[36]
[78]
In
Rosani
(born Nohako) and Another v Qoboka and Another,
[37]
Tokota
ADJP noted with concern that:
‘
There
appears to be a growing prevalence of failure to comply with the
Rules of Court and a total disregard for the practice directives.’
[79]
Non-compliance
with the
Rules
and
Practice
Directions
creates
a culture of not only poor quality litigation but an abuse of court
process.
[80]
I echo the sentiments of Tokoto ADJP that the time has come for the
Court not to tolerate the
non-compliance with the
Rules
and
Practice
Directions.
[38]
[81]
The lackadaisical approach that has crept into the presentation of
the present and like matters
is unfortunate. Whilst the plight in
seeking to vindicate the violation of those whose rights have been
unfairly affected is admirable,
this cannot justify the
non-compliance with the
Rules
or
Practice Directions
.
[82]
The reality is that this Court is being bombarded with a host of
sub-standard litigation, with
scant regard being paid to either the
content or the Rules and in circumstances where there is a reluctance
to explore alternative
remedies.
[83]
Whilst the applicants have been partially successful in the relief
sought, for the reasons outlined,
I am not inclined to award the
costs of the application to them.
RELIEF
[84]
In considering the relief that is appropriate, there appears little
point in granting an interim
order thus permitting a matter to remain
on the court roll when the parties have fully ventilated the issues
during argument.
[85]
This will serve no purpose other than to proliferate an already
overburdened roll with like matters
and increased legal costs.
[86]
Accordingly, the following order will issue in respect of each
application:
1.
The application is enrolled and heard as
one of urgency in terms of
Rule 6(12)
of the
Uniform Rules of Court
;
2.
The Respondents’ failure to deliver
to the applicant a 14-day written notice prior to implementing debt
collection procedures
is declared unlawful;
3.
The first respondent is directed to deliver
to the applicant a 14-day written notice of its intention to restrict
the purchase of
electricity supply to the applicant’s premises.
4.
The respondents are directed to uplift any
restriction on the purchase of electrical supply to the applicant’s
premises within
4 hours after service of this order, by the
applicant’s attorney, at the office of the second respondent;
5.
The respondents are interdicted and
restrained from implementing a restriction on the purchase of
electrical supply to the applicant’s
premises pending the
provision and expiration of the written 14-day notice referred to in
paragraph 1;
6.
Each party is to pay their own costs.
S
A COLLETT
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
for the Applicants
:
Mr
Foord
Instructed
by
: Du
Plessis Attorneys
East London
Ref. Mr Du Plessis
Counsel
for the Respondents
:
Mr
Novukela
Instructed
by
: B
Bangani Attorneys, East London
Ref. Mr Bangani
Date
heard
: 19 July 2023
Date
judgment delivered
: 25 July
2023
[1]
Nelson
Mandela Metropolitan Municipality & others v Greyvenouw CC &
Others
2004(2)
SA 81 (SE) at para [37], [38] & [40]
[2]
East
Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty)
Ltd and Others
(11/227670[2011]
ZAGPJHC 196 (23 September 2011);
Lindeque
and others v Hirsch and others in re: Prepaid 24 (Pty) Limited
(2019/8846) [2019] ZAGPJHC 122 (3 May 2019[10]
[3]
Nomangezi
Mzileni v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality
Case
2010/2022 delivered on ….
[4]
Noncedo
Dukashe v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and
Another
Case No. 2011/2022 (18 November 2022)
[5]
Act
108 of 1996
[6]
Respondents’
answering affidavit page 99
[7]
Municipal
Systems Act 73 (1) & (2)
[8]
Municipal
Systems Act Section 74 (1)
[9]
Municipal
Systems Act Section 75 (1)
[10]
Municipal
Systems Act Section 96
[11]
Municipal
Systems Act Section 98
[12]
The
Constitution of South African Act 108 of 1996; Section 152;
Municipal Systems Act 73(2) (c) and section 4(2) (d)
[13]
Mkontwana
v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another
2005
(1) SA 530
(cc) at para 52
[14]
Electricity
Supply By-Laws - Section 5
[15]
Electricity
Supply By-Laws - Section 21 (b) (vii)
[16]
Municipal
Systems Act, Sections 96 and 97.
[17]
The
Constitution, Sections 152 and 156.
[18]
Credit
Control Policy, Sections 3 (1) and 3 (4).
[19]
Credit
Control Policy, Section 3 (6)
[20]
Municipal
Systems Act, Section 100.
[21]
Municipal
Systems Act, Section 97 (1)(g)
[22]
Municipal
Systems Act, Section 102 (1)(c)
[23]
Municipal
Systems Act, Section 102 (2)
[24]
Credit
Control Policy, Section 8(4)
[25]
Credit
Control Policy, Section 8 (6)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) and (vi)
[26]
Respondents’ answering affidavit
[27]
Constitution
Section 152; Municipal Systems Act Section 73 (2)(c)
[28]
Constitution
33 (1)
[29]
PAJA,
Section 3 (1)
[30]
Walele
v City of Cape Town & Others
[2008]
ZACC 111
[31]
Leon
Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others
para
[26]
[32]
Applicants’
founding affidavit.
[33]
Uniform
Rules, Rule 6 (1)
[34]
Practice
Directions, Rule 23 (v)
[35]
Practice
Directions, Rule 8 (c)
[36]
Patmore
v Patmore
1997(4) SA 785 (W) at 787H – 788H;
Visser
v Visser
1992(4) SA 530 (SECLD) at 531
[37]
(4443/2020) [2022] ZAECMHC 42 (20 October 2022), paragraph 3
[38]
Rozani
and Another v Qoboka and Another, paragraph 4