SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2024 -018830
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED : YES/NO
DATE: 10/3/ 2025
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
MIEMIE ELIZABETH VERMEULEN Applicant
and
THE CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY 1st Respondent
THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER OF THE CITY OF TSHWANE 2nd Respondent
JUDGMENT
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading to Caselines. The date and time of hand -
down is deemed to be 14:00 on 11 March 2025.
MOJAPELO AJ
INTRODUCTION:
1. The Appl icant is the owner of a property situated at No. 1 […] S[…] Street, the
Wilds Estate which is within the jurisdiction of the City of Tshwane Metropolitan
Municipality. The electricity supply to the Applicant's premises was disconnected in
January 2024 becaus e of what the City alleges to be tampering. It is the Applicant's
case that she sh ould have been given a notice before the disconnection and the
City's case is that in the event of tampering, there is no provision for a prior notice.
Consequently, the App licant seeks an order that the action of the City of
disconnecting the electricity supply to her premises be declared unlawful.
APPLICANT'S CASE:
2. The applicant states that she purchased the said property and took ownership
on or about 31 August 2023. The Applicant states that she did not immediately
occupy the property on a permanent basis as she was still residing at her other
residence in Lydenburg in Mpumalanga Province. The applicant states that on 31
August 2023, she noticed that there was no ele ctricity on her premises. She reported
the matter to the agents and attorneys that assisted her with the transfer of the
property and they arranged for electricians from the City to investigate and the power
was restored on 01 September 2023. She then retu rned to Mpumalanga on 02
September 2023.
3. However, the applicant states that she was unable to purchase electricity or to
load any tokens. She states that; ''At this point in time we were unable to; purchase
electricity or to load any tokens. The electr icians that attended our premises on 1
September 2023 indicated that they are assisting us due to the ongoing strike of the
employees of the first respondent during that time." She further stated that; "Even
though I took possession of this property on 31 August 2023 and only permanently
started occupying the premises on 13 February 2024, I have only as recent as 31
January 2024 being able to purchase electricity whereafter a token is issued to me.
Despite the token being issued, I am unable to load the t oken as a result of the
disconnection."
4. This means that even though the Applicant has taken ownership and
possession of the property since 31 August 2023, she was only able to purchase and
load electricity on 31 January 2024. For a period of five months, the applicant did not
purchase any ele ctricity, but somehow her premises had electricity until it was
disconnected by the City on the allegation of tampering.
5. The applicant states that when she returned to Pretoria on 10 January 2024,
she discovered that there was no hot water. The realisa tion that there was no hot
water occurred a day after the City disconnected the applicant's electricity supply on
the allegations of tampering. She then contacted her electrician, Mr Nico Coetzee,
who advised her that the circuit breaker was removed. The a pplicant does not
provide any further information except to state that she has now permanently
relocated and started occupying the disputed premises on 13 February 2024.
6. It is the applicant's case that the actions of the City in disconnecting the
elect ricity supply to her premises should be declared unlawful because she was not
given any prior notice of the termination. She further states that there was no prima
facie evidence of tampering.
THE CITY'S CASE:
7. The City's case is briefly that they hav e a program to monitor prepaid
electricity meter boxes. The purpose of this program is to monitor electricity prepaid
meters where there are no purchases of electricity or low purchases of electricity.
The program was necessitated by the fact that where th ere are no electricity
purchases on prepaid meters, it has usually been found that the prepaid meters have
been tampered with and/or bridged so as to enable a consumer to use electricity
without purchasing the same.
8. The Municipality is able to identif y possible cases of electricity tampering
through prepaid meters which do not report any electricity purchasing. It is stated
that the Municipality has discovered this ploy wherein consumers who bridged
electricity resorted to purchasing low electricity un its. The Municipality discovered
that the average electricity usage is not consistent with the units purchased. They
therefore identify possible illegal connection, tampering and/or theft by monitoring
non-purchase or low purchase prepaid meters.
9. In th is particular matter it is alleged that on 09 January 2024, the
Municipality's electricity division went to No. […] S[…] Street, the Wilds Estate to
investigate a prepaid meter not assigned to the applicant as there has been a
dispute lodged by the said con sumer. The electricity box at No. […] S[…] Street
contains several prepaid meters of different properties in the area, including that of
the applicant. As the officials of the City were busy investigating the prepaid meter of
No. […] S[…] Street, they realis ed that there was another prepaid meter that had
been tampered with. This prepaid meter had account number 0 […], which belonged
to 1[…] S[…] Street. This is the prepaid electricity meter that belongs to the applicant.
10. They further state that whe re the electricity division identifies a tampered
connection on site, they are obliged to complete a manual job card and investigate
the tampered connection. They were advised to also take pictures of the tampered
connection, which pictures have been attac hed to the answering affidavit.
11. After an investigation by the officials of the City, they submit that there was
evidence of a tampered connection which they have explained as follows;
"27.1 The prepaid meter has two (2) red cables connected to it. Th e one on
the right and the one on the left.
27.2 The one on the right is known as the outcome circuit and the left cable
is known as the income. The left income cable is the supply for the
Municipality and it is connected from the circuit breaker and the r ight cable is
the outcome and is connected to the house load.
27.3 The income cable is also referred to as the supply cable whereas the
outcome cable is also referred to as the load.
27.4 The Municipality's technicians carries a customer interface unit ( green
one) that is used to communicate with the identified meter. When the
connection has been tampered with (when both right and left cables are
joined/connected) the consumer interface unit will display the units available
on the meter.
27.5 Accordingly, when both cables are connected together, the prepaid
system within the meter is bypassed, there will be no need for the prepaid
meter as the prepaid system will be disabled."
12. It is reported that the officials of the City's electricity division then r emoved the
bridge and reconnected the applicant's prepaid meter cables to normal. They then
proceeded to disconnect electricity supply to the applicant's premises.
THE RULE NISI :
13. The applicant then brought this matter to the Urgent Court and obtained a rule
nisi on 28 February 2024, the relevant part reads as follows:
"3. A rule nisi is issued calling upon the respondent to show cause on 14 May
2024 at 10:00 or as soon therea fter as the matter may be heard why an order
with the following terms should not be made final:
3.1 that the termination /disconnection /discontinuation /blocking / restriction
of service to the electricity supply to NO. 10 S[…] STREET, THE W ILDS
ESTATE, PRETOR/USPART EXT13, PRETORIA ("the premises ") be and is
hereby declared unlawful;
3.2 that the respondents be and are hereby directed to reconnect / unblock /
unrestrict the electricity supply to the premises within 4 (four) hours after
service of the Court order at the office of the second respondent, by the
applicant's Attorneys;
3.3 that the respondents be and are hereby interdicted and restrained from
charging the applicant a reconnection fee as a result oft eh unlawful
restriction /termination /disconnection /discontinuation /blocking of service;
3.4 that the respondents be and are interdicted and restrained from
unlawfully terminating /disconnecting /blocking /restricting the electricity supply
of the electricity to the premises;
3.5 that paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 above shall operate as an interim
mandamus/interdict pending the finalization of this Application;
4. Costs on the scale as between Party and Party."
14. This is therefore the return day of the rule nisi . The Court may on the return
day confirm or discharge the rule. Rule nisi is analogous to interim interdicts, both of
which are mostly made in the urgent Court, where the judge sitting in the urgent
Court does not have as much time as a judge sitting in a normal opposed motion
Court.
15. In the matter of Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Vaal River Development
Association (Pty) Ltd and Others 2023 (4) SA 325 (CC), it was held as follows:
"Sight should not be lost of the fact that a substantial number of applications
for interim r elief are brought by way of urgency. There is much to be said for
the view that a judge sitting in a busy urgent Court does not have as much
time as does a judge who hears trials or decides non -urgent opposed matters.
Although each judge must strive for th e attainment of the best possible
outcome in the circumstances, this reality cannot be ignored. Of course, this is
not an invitation to judges considering urgent interim interdicts to avoid
deciding legal questions which - with the necessary diligence - are capable of
definitive decision."
16. Although it is accepted that the electricity metre box that contained the
applicant's prepaid electricity meter contains several other meters, the applicant in
the replying affidavit states that the investigation and the evidence provided by the
City is for the wrong house. In other words, the pictures were taken outside No. […]
S[…] Street, whereas the applicant's house is No. 1 […] S[…] Street. This allegation
is repeated in the heads of arguments despite it being comm on cause that the meter
box at No. […] S[…] Street contains several meters of several houses in the vicinity
including that of the applicant.
THE CITY OF TSHWANE ELECTRICITY BY -LAWS:
17. The relevant section of the City of Tshwane Standard Electricity By -Laws that
provides for disconnection in relation to the tampering of electricity supply is section
26 which reads as follows:
"Section 26 of the Standard Electricity Supply By -Laws supra provides
(1) No consumer, owner, occupier or registered owner of any premises or
immovable property or any other person may in any manner or for any reason
whatsoever bypass the meter and/or a r elated metering equipment of the
Municipality or of a contractor on or relating to any premises, or otherwise
tamper or interfere with, remove, redirect, disturb, alter, vandalise or steal any
meter or other metering equipment, or any service connection , service
protective device, protective box or case, the supply of mains or any other
electricity supply or metering assets, equipment and/or infrastructure forming
part of the Municipality's electricity supply, distribution and reticulation network
and/or any prepayment meter system, smart prepayment meter system,
whether owned or operated by the Municipality or a contractor and whether or
not it is located or installed on, or affixed to any premises or is located or
installed elsewhere in relation to any premises. Such tampering, interference,
removal, redirection, by -passing vandalism and theft shall constitute an
offense in terms of these By -Laws.
(2) Where prima facie evidence of tampering, interference or by passing
referred to in subsection (1) exist s, the Municipality has the right to disconnect
the supply of electricity immediately without prior notice to the consumer. The
consumer is liable for all fees and charges levied by the Municipality for the
disconnection and subsequent reconnection in acco rdance with the approved
tariffs.
(3) In cases where the tampering, interference or by -passing referred to in
subsection (1) has resulted in the accuracy of the meter being compromised,
the Municipality has the right to rectify the consumer's account to in clude
circuit breaker, connection and quota charges."
18. It is quite clear from the above section that the City, on the existence of prima
facie evidence of tampering, has the right to disconnect the electricity supply
immediately without prior notice to the consumer.
19. The applicant argues otherwise and states that she is entitled to a fourteen
(14) day notice. The section that deals with a fourteen (14) day notice prior to the
disconnection of the electricity supply is section 21 and it states as fol lows:
"Section 21 of the Standard Electricity Supply By -Laws supra provides
(1) The Municipality has the right, after giving notice, to disconnect the
electricity supply to any premises if -
(a) the person liable for payment for the supply or for payment for any
other municipal service fails to pay any charge due to the Municipality in
respect of any service which he or she may at any time have received from
the Municipality in respect of the premises; or
(b) any of the provisions of these By -Laws and/ or the regulations are
being contravened.
(2) The Municipality has the right to disconnect the electricity supply to any
premises if there has been deliberate overloading on or the illegal increase of
supply or capacity of supply to the premises. The Munic ipality must give
notice to the consumer of its intention to disconnect or, in the case of a grave
risk, the Municipality may disconnect without giving notice. After a consumer's
electricity supply has been disconnected for non -payment of accounts or for
the improper or unsafe use of electricity or for any other related reason, the
fee prescribed by the Municipality must be paid by the consumer."
20. Section 21 of the electricity By -Laws deals with the situation where the
disconnection is a result of non -payment. This matter does not deal with
nonpayment and therefore the provisions of section 21 are not applicable in this
matter. However, it is worth noting that the City under section 21(2) has the power to
disconnect electricity without notice in the ca se of a grave risk.
21. However, the applicant insists that it is entitled to a notice prior to the
termination despite the clear text of section 26, in particular section 26(2) of the
Standard Electricity By -Laws.
22. Even though the provisions of secti on 26 do not provide for prior notice before
termination, the applicant argues that she is entitled to procedural fairness as
provided for by, amongst others, section 3 of the Promotion of Administration Justice
Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). In this regard, the ap plicant relies on the Constitutional Court
case of Joseph and Others vs The City of Johannesburg and Others 2010(4)
SA55 (CC) where it was stated that the City Council must afford the applicants a pre -
termination notice and the Constitutional Court went on to describe what should be
contained in that notice.1
23. The matter of Joseph is not applicable in the current matter as the
Constitutional Court was dealing with the termination of electricity based on an
outstanding amount. The Joseph matter involved a large residential and commercial
property where the owner was in arrears to the tune of R400 000.00 and the City
1 Joseph (supra) paragraph 61.
terminated the electricity supply. The Constitutional Court held that prior to the
termination of electricity, the applicants in that matter should have been given a pre -
termination notice, which notice; " must contain all relevant information, including the
date and the time of the proposed disconnection, the reason for the proposed
disconnection, and the place at which the affected parties can challenge the basis of
the proposed disconnection. Moreover, it must afford the applicant sufficient t ime to
make any necessary inquiries and investigations, to seek legal advice, and to
organize themselves collectively if they so wish ."2
24. However, this matter does not deal with a dispute about payment. This matter
deals with the termination based on a n alleged illegal activity of tampering. The City
states that the purpose of the immediate disconnection is to prevent electricity theft.
One can only imagine the amount of revenue that the City would lose while waiting
for the illegally connected consumer to make representations. There is also an
element of safety risk to members of the public.
25. The question of whether the applicant who is receiving electricity based on an
illegal or unlawful connection would be entitled to the notice procedure in term s of
PAJA as described by the Constitutional Court in the matter of Joseph was dealt
with by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the matter of Eskom Holdings S oc Ltd v
Sidoyi and Others 2019 JBR 0963 SCA where it was held as follows:
"If Eskom was correct in s aying that the supply of electricity to Mr Sidoyi's
house was via an unlawful connection using electrical apparatus that had
been unlawfully erected and installed, it was difficult to see how the removal
of that apparatus, which would have the effect of te rminating the supply, could
constitute administrative action as defined in PAJA. The reason was that the
definition of administrative action in section 1 of PAJA requires that the action
in question 'adversely affect the rights' of the person bringing the proceedings.
If the means of receiving a supply of electricity is an unlawful connection to
2 Joseph (supra) paragraph 61.
the electricity network there is no right or legitimate expectation to receive that
supply of electricity. "3
26. Similarly, in this matter where there are allegati ons of an illegal activity of
tampering, the procedural rights provided for in PAJA are not applicable and the
applicant's reliance on the Constitutional Court case of Joseph is misplaced.
CHALLENGE TO EVIDENCE OF TAMPERING:
27. There is another issue that was raised on behalf of the applicant. The issue in
general can be categorized as a challenge to the allegation that there was prima
facie evidence of tampering. This attack is raised on thre e (3) fronts. First, the
investigation was done at the wrong address, second, the electrician hired on behalf
of the applicant concluded that there was no tampering, and third, there were no
supporting affidavits by the officials who conducted the inspecti on.
28. The first issue is that the investigation was done at the wrong address. It is
alleged that the investigation was done at house No. […] S[…] Street, whereas the
applicant's house is No. 1 […] S[…] Street. This challenge is based on the
photograph tha t was used by the City as evidence of tampering. That photograph
has a GPS address of No. […] S[…] Street. The submission by the applicant is
disingenuous based on the following; in the founding papers, the applicant states
that the electricity box outside the applicant's premises is used by multiple properties.
She states that; "I need to highlight that upon inspection, the electricity box outside
my premises is being used by multiple properties." The fact that the electricity box
contains electricity meter s from multiple properties was also supported by the
respondent in their answering affidavit when they stated that they went there to
inspect the electricity meter of house No. […] S[…] Street and in the same electricity
box, there was the applicant's meter which was found to have been tampered with.
However, in her replying affidavit and in her heads of argument, the applicant took
the stance that because the GPS coordinates on the photograph of tampering show
that the picture was taken at house No. […] S[…] Street, then this Court must
3 Sidoyi (supra) paragraph 15.
conclude that the inspection was done at the wrong house. This submission cannot
be taken seriously based on the fact that the applicant's own version in the founding
papers is that the electricity metre box contains various m eters of various properties
and those properties include the applicant's property and house No. […] S[…] Street.
In any event, the report contains the meter number that belongs to the applicant.
29. On the second issue, the applicant argues that there was no evidence of
tampering as the applicant's electrician, Mr Nico Coetzee stated under oath that he
had inspected the photographs and investigated the alleged tampering and
concluded that there was no tampering in the applicant's electricity meter box. T his
inspection by the applicant's electrician occurred after the City had already removed
the illegal bridging material from the box. It is the City's submission that after the
members of the electricity division removed the bridge, they reconnected the
applicant's prepaid meter cables to normal. It is therefore understood that after the
normalization of the prepaid meter and the removal of the illegal material, an
inspection that happened thereafter would not find any evidence of tampering. Such
evidence o f tampering would have been removed by the time of Mr Coetzee's
investigation.
30. Although the applicant alleges not to have occupied the property since she
took possession on 01 September 2023 and only took occupation on 13 February
2024, she states tha t she discovered on 10 February 2024 that there was no hot
water in the house. The date of 10 February 2024 is a date immediately after 09
February 2024 when the City's officials removed the illegal bridging material and
disconnected the electricity supply to the applicant's premises based on tampering.
The only response from the applicant's attorney is that it was a coincidence.
However, this " coincidence " does not assist the applicant's case on the probabilities
based on the fact that the applicant did no t during this period of approximately five (5)
months purchase electricity. The question that remains is how was the electricity
supplied to the applicant's house for a period of five (5) months without any electricity
purchases.
31. The third issue is the allegation that there is no corroborating evidence from
the officials who did the inspection. However, the answering affidavit states that
those officials reported to Mr Sivhada, the Director of the Energy and Electricity
Departm ent of the City, who has filed a confirmatory affidavit.
32. On the conspectus of all the facts, there is absolutely no basis to doubt the
City's finding of prima facie evidence of tampering on the applicant's prepaid
electricity meter box. Consequently, this application should fail.
COSTS
33. The City states that it has a program for monitoring electricity meter boxes.
The purpose of this program is to monitor electricity prepaid meters where there are
non-purchases of electricity or low purchases of electricity. It states that the program
was necessitated by the fact that where there are no electricity purchases on prepaid
meters, it has usually been found that the prepaid meters have been tampered with
and/or bridged so as to enable a consumer to use electricity without purchasing the
same. In other words, the City is monitoring electricity theft by consumers who are
supposed to purchase it. Section 26 of the Standard Electricity By -laws gives the
City the authority to immediately, without notice, dis connect the electricity supply
where there is prima facie evidence of tampering.
34. In addition thereto, the By -laws provide that any person who tampers with any
metering equipment shall be guilty of an offense and if found guilty by a Court of law
may b e sentenced to a fine.4 And further, the By -laws provide that any person who
contravenes them is liable to compensate the Municipality for the loss, expenditure,
and/or damage suffered or sustained by the Municipality.5
35. The City has an obligation to p rovide electricity in a safe environment and to
collect payments for its services. The illegal connections result in unaccounted
consumption of electricity; the loss of substantial revenue and, most importantly,
pose a significant public health and safety risk to consumers and members of the
public.
4 Section 62(1) of the Electricity By -laws
5 Section 62(2) of the Electricity By -Laws
36. The efforts of the City to comply with their obligations in terms of the By -laws
are deliberately frustrated. The applicant tells this Court that she took possession of
her property on 31 August 2023 but wa s unable to buy electricity until 31 January
2024, a period of five months. It does not need a lot of imagination to see where the
applicant was getting her electricity supply all along. Coincidentally, on 10 January
2024, after the City had removed the br idge and disconnected her electricity, she
suddenly discovered that there was no hot wa ter in the house.
37. Despite telling the Court that there are multiple meters belo nging to several
properties in one electricity meter box outside No. […] S[…] Street, she surprisingly
persists with a meritless argument that the inspection was made at the wrong
address.
38. During her meeting with the Director in the Energy and Electric ity Department
of the City, she claimed that the bridging must have been made by the previous
owner. Although she tersely denies having made such a statement, the applicant
does not explain to this Court how her house was electrified for a period of about five
(5) months without purchasing electricity.
39. This Court has already frowned upon this type of conduct. In the matter of City
of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Grob ler and Others 2005 (6) SA 61 (T)
it was held as follows:
"This deliberate flouting of the law in the face of lawful attempts by the
applicant to perform its statutory duty warrants a special costs order. To
permit such conduct would result in anarchy, particularly in a city where it is
notorious that contraventions of the scheme , in circumstances such as the
present, are widespread."
40. There is accordingly no basis at all in this matter for the City to be out of
pocket when performing its obligations. There is therefore no reason to deviate from
the principle that the costs should follow the results.
CONCLUSION:
41. Under the circ umstances, the applicant is not entitled to the interdict and the
other orders prayed for. I therefore make the following order:
1. The rule nisi issued by this Court on 28 February 2024 is hereby
discharged.
2. The application is dismissed.
3. The a pplicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application, which
costs will include the reserved costs of 03 July 2024 on a party and party
scale and counsel's costs on scale B.
MM MOJAPELO
ACTING JUDGE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT MR NICO DU PLESSIS (ATTORNEY)
ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT NJ DU PLESSIS & ASSOCIATES INC.
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ADV. N MATIDZA
ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPONDENT NCUBE INCORPORATED ATTORNEY