CDIe>
< Q a.
LY REO
ay S
WZ FAY 4
<< OF SA ww
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
RONATURE DATE: W Ww
CASE NO: 2025-091612
In the matter between: -
JALTECH AFRICA CAPITAL (PTY) LTD First Applicant
(Reg No: 2015/006686/07)
JALTECH SP 1 PARTNERSHIP EN
COMMANDITE Second Applicant
JALTECH SP SEPTEMBER 2023
PARTNERSHIP EN COMMANDITE Third Applicant
and
ALLEYROADS POWER (PTY) LTD First Respondent
(Reg No: 2016/210715/07)
BLOCKPOWER (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
(Reg No: 2016/288505/07)
BRIDGE CITY HOUSING CONSORTIUM (PTY) LTD Third Respondent
(Reg No: 2023/110305/07)
SIVULA SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Fourth Respondent
(Reg No: 2023/095186/07)
Neutral citation: Jaltech and Others v Alleyroad and Others [2025] ZAGPJHC
(2 July 2025)
Coram: Allen AJ
Heard: 1 July 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties
or their legal representatives by email, by uploading to the electronic file of this matter
on Caselines, and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal
Information Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 2 July 2025.
Summary: Urgent opposed application for relief to turn off and deactivate a power
supply system - Applicant sells electricity to the first respondent who in turn sells
electricity to the third respondent - Second respondent operates the system to be
turned off for emergency repairs, normal maintenance - Interference with the safe
operation of the system - Monies outstanding for electricity sold - Respondents
interdicted from interfering or removing components from the system.
JUDGMENT
ALLEN AJ
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an urgent opposed application for relief to turn off and deactivate the
380 KWP Solar PV and 1000 KWP Battery Electricity Generating Storage and
Supply System known as Chiawelo Phase 2 (“the System’) situated at
Chiawelo-Wasani Heights Apartment Block in Chiawelo, Soweto for emergency
repairs and normal maintenance.
[2] The fourth respondent be ordered to do all things necessary to give effect to
the relief sought.
[3] | The respondents be interdicted and restrained from interfering with the System,
removing components therefrom, taking any steps to turn it on and reactivate
the System without the applicant's prior written consent and costs by those
respondents opposing the application on the attorney and client scale.
[4] Respondents two and four gave notice to abide and respondents one and three
opposed the application. First respondent filed an answering affidavit, but not
third respondent. Second respondent, notwithstanding the business
relationship with applicant and its notice to abide, gave a confirmatory affidavit
to first respondent.
THE FACTS
[5] First applicant is the joint owner of the System and sells electricity generated
therefrom to the first respondent who in turn sells electricity to the third
respondent, the owner of the block of flats. The second respondent is the sub-
contracted operator of the System in terms of an Operator Agreement.
[6] It is common cause that the System has been interfered with. Mr. Sauer, for
respondents, gave an expert report based on his observations from the outside
only. Mr. Sauer is a Construction Health and Safety Manager and not an
Page 3