2
municipality concerned is entitled to disconnect a rate-payer’s services for
non-payment. The rate-prayer’s diminished confidence in the municipality’s
ability to recognise and to correct its mistake, and the inevitable tension
created by any attempt to disconnect services, often leads the rate-payer to
reduce or withhold payments for their ongoing consumption of services, even
where it is not clear that withholding payment is proper or lawful.
2 And so the situation deteriorates: service disconnections are threatened or
carried out as a credit control measure, and this court is engaged with an
urgent application for the reconnection of services, in circumstances where
the rate-payer’s true underlying liability is murky, and neither party can say
what the rate-payer really owes. By the time the matter is litigated, however,
battle lines have been drawn, and the level of aggression between the parties
obscures, at least from the court’s view, the facts necessary to resolve the
underlying problem by calculating the rate-payer’s liability accurately. Where
large tenanted buildings are involved, the dispute between the parties ripples
out to the detriment of end-users of municipal services, who have no direct
contractual relationship with the municipality, but who nonetheless fin d
themselves disconnected from vital services in circumstances where they owe
nothing.
3 This case bears all of these features. The applicant, Ordicode, owns a large
tenement in the Johannesburg inner city. The property is used both for
commercial and residential purposes. The ground floor of the property is
tenanted by a number of businesses, while the upper floors house around 200
students. Each of the students’ units is supplied with electricity by way of a
3
pre-payment meter, meaning that the students can never be in arrears with
their electricity payments. The common areas of the student accommodation
and the ground floor of the property, are, however, credit metered. Electricity
supplied to the ground floor is billed at commercial rates through one meter,
and the electricity supplied to the common areas is billed at domestic rates via
another meter.
4 It is the accuracy of these meters which is the subject of this application.
Ordicode says that the “CT ratios” programmed into each of these meters are
inaccurate, and that this has led to grossly inflated electricity bills. Nobody
could tell me in argument what a “CT ratio” is, and I was unable to find an
intelligible explanation of the concept anywhere on the papers. Nonetheless,
it appears from some reading around the topic that “CT” stands for “Current
Transformer”, and that a Current Transformer is a mechanism used to scale
down very high currents so that meters can read the amount of current flowing
through a high-volume electrical connection. A CT ratio is used to calculate
from the scaled down current directed through the meter the total amount of
current passing through the connection. An incorrect CT ratio can,
presumably, result in an inaccurate reading of the total current directed into
the connection.
5 When Ordicode’s inflated meter readings were first raised and investigated in
December 2020, almost five years ago, the respondents, the City of
Johannesburg and its electricity utility, City Power, conceded that Ordicode
had been billed R3.8 million in excess of its true liability on its commercial
meter. The overcharge was reversed, but non-payment penalties and interest
4
levied on the excess amount were not reversed. Ordicode quite reasonably
protests that the account should be fully reconciled to eliminate interest and
penalties on an amount which should never have been charged in the first
place.
6 The situation applicable to the domestic meter is less clear. Ordicode says
that the CT ratios programmed into that meter were also inaccurate, resulting
in excessive billing which has never been corrected. This appears to be
corroborated by a document generated by City Power dated 9 December
2020, and attached as annexure “FA5” to Ordicode’s founding affidavit. In that
document, which appears to be a report on a City Power test of the domestic
meter at the property, it is said that: “[t]his meter may have been captured
incorrectly for commercial use since it was installed on 24/08/2019; please
change it to domestic use and the tariff should be updated accordingly. Please
also confirm if the CT ratio on the system is captured correctly as 800/5A at
400V, if not please update it. Note that the sim card has been changed to
5417036238 to improve communication, please update it on the system”. This
raises the possibility that the CT ratios applicable to the domestic meter are
inaccurate, and / or that commercial rates are being unlawfully charged on
domestic consumption at the property.
7 Furthermore, Ordicode complains, in months where it cannot or does not take
a meter reading, City Power regularly estimates Ordicode’s liability using
consumption estimates which are calculated using the inflated and inaccurate
readings taken from the faulty meter. There are no doubt interest and penalty
charges levied on these amounts, which are themselves, at least in part, billed
5
inaccurately. Ordicode says that the respondents regularly “reconciled” the
domestic account between 2020 and 2023, but that the fundamental problems
– the incorrectly calibrated meter and the unlawfully charged penalties and
interest – were never addressed.
8 On 11 July 2023, Ordicode’s attorney wrote to the City setting out these
concerns, seeking the correction of the electricity account, and asking for an
undertaking that services to the property would not be disconnected pending
that correction.
9 It does not appear that this letter was answered. Accordingly, on 3 August
2023, Ordicode launched this application, in which it seeks extraordinary relief
directing the respondents to “rebuild” the account in a manner set out in the
notice of motion, and declaring that the respondents “have the onus” to prove
the amounts due in respect of electricity supplied to the property. Ms.
Rodrigues, who appeared for Ordicode, could not identify the basis on which
I could instruct the respondents to re-calculate Ordicode’s account in the
particular way outlined in Ordicode’s notice of motion.
10 I am not satisfied that this would be a proper order to make. Had Ordicode re-
calculated its own liability according to the applicable tariffs and by-laws and
asked me to declare its liability in that amount, I would probably have been
able to grant that relief, unless the facts underlying the calculation were
disputed. However, that is not what Ordicode did. It instead asked me to step
in to the City’s shoes and direct it to “rebuild” its account according to principles
of calculation which, as far as I can see, have been thought up by Ordicode
itself. I have no power to make such an order, especially since one of the steps
6
Ordicode wants me to take is to direct the respondents to strip all of their
estimated charges out of their accounts, and to charge Ordicode only what
they can “prove” Ordicode owes.
11 Wholly lacking from Ordicode’s papers is any sense of what constitutes “proof”
of its liability, and to whose satisfaction such “proof” is to be provided. In
addition, the respondents are perfectly entitled, under section 5 of the City of
Johannesburg’s Credit Control and Debt Collection Bylaws, 2004, to estimate
Ordicorde’s electricity consumption where “no meter reading could be
obtained in respect of the period concerned”. There is no basis on which I can
direct the respondents to disregard their estimated readings unless the
jurisdictional requirements of section 5 were not met or the estimates had no
rational basis. Ordicode makes no allegation that those requirements were
absent when estimated charges were added to its account. Nor does Ordicode
allege the facts necessary to assess the rationality of any particular estimate.
12 For their part, the respondents raise no genuine dispute that Ordicorde has
been incorrectly billed. In the first place, I do not think that the deponent to the
answering affidavit could have the personal knowledge he claims of the facts
necessary to meet Ordicode’s case. Ordicode’s case concerns meter
malfunctions and accounting errors dating back three years from the date on
which the application was launched. The deponent to the answering affidavit
is a Mr. Tuwani Ngwana, a legal advisor to the City of Johannesburg, who
says nothing to ground the inference that he has personal knowledge of the
state of the meters at the property or of the way that Ordicode’s accounts have
been calculated. There are no affidavits from any of City Power’s
7
functionaries, and certainly nothing from anyone who has dealt directly with
Ordicode’s account. This court has in the past strongly disapproved of City
legal advisers attesting to facts of which they can have no personal
knowledge, or purporting to answer a case based on facts clearly beyond their
ken (see Millu v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality [2024]
ZAGPJHC 419 (18 March 2024), paragraph 45). It appears that this
disapproval has yet to filter through to those responsible for drawing papers
on the City’s behalf.
13 Even taken at face value, Mr. Ngwana’s affidavit does little more than talk
around Ordicode’s complaints. Save for a smattering of bare denials, the
affidavit does not address Ordicode’s allegation that the CT ratios on its
meters have yet to be corrected. Nor does he address the complaint about the
deduction of interest and penalties the respondents must accept were
erroneously charged on the R3.8 million credited to Ordicode after the
December 2020 investigation. The affidavit does very little to meet Ordicode’s
case that nothing at all has been done to address the inaccuracy of its
domestic meter. The affidavit refers blandly to a “reconciliation” done in
February 2022, but does not address Ordicode’s allegations that this
“reconciliation” failed to resolve the fundamental underlying difficulties with the
way its liability has been calculated: viz. the failure to deduct interest and
penalty charges, the inaccuracy of the domestic meter and the addition of
charges estimated for consumption based on inaccurate readings.
14 The one point of value Mr. Ngwana does make, which Mr. Sithole, who
appeared for the respondents, hammered home in oral argument, is that
8
Ordicode’s payments on the account are unlikely to have kept pace with its
actual current consumption, whatever that is. I cannot say whether this is true,
but I must accept that Ordicode’s payments, though significant, are irregular,
and are not matched with any sense of what it believes its current consumption
to be.
15 Ultimately, though, Ordicode’s payment record is not directly relevant to the
issues before me. Badenhorst AJ has already restrained the respondents from
disconnecting Ordicode’s electricity supply without a court order pending the
outcome of this application (see Erf R Five (Pty) Limited and Another v City of
Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Ordicode (Pty) Ltd v City of
Johannesburg; Hyde Park Gardens (Pty) Ltd v City Power of Johannesburg
Soc Limited [2025] ZAGPJHC 13 (6 January 2025)). While Badenhorst AJ’s
failure to place Ordicode under any reciprocal obligation to continue paying a
reasonable amount in respect of its ongoing consumption raises an eyebrow,
the fundamental problem is how Ordicode’s account is to be corrected. Once
the account is corrected, any underpayment can be dealt with in the usual
way.
16 To sum up: there is no serious dispute that Ordicode’s account is incorrect.
However, the relief aimed at correcting Ordicode’s account prayed for in the
notice of motion is unsuited to its purpose, chiefly because it is relief that I
have no power to grant. The question that naturally arises in this context is
what action I should take, given that I am inclined neither to dismiss the
application nor to grant relief in the terms sought in the notice of motion.
9
17 Happily, during the course of oral argument, counsel for both parties accepted
that I should grant some form of alternative relief. They also agreed that the
appropriate first step would be a debatement of Ordicode’s account. If, after
the debatement, no agreement can be reached, then each party should state
the amount it says is presently due and payable on the account, in an affidavit
setting out how that amount was calculated on the basis of the applicable
tariffs and bylaws. Those affidavits having been submitted to me, I will then
make a determination of the correct amount owing and direct the City to adjust
Ordicode’s account accordingly. Throughout this process Badenhorst AJ’s
interim interdict will remain in effect. But counsel were agreed that the interim
interdict should expire shortly after I have given judgment determining the
amount Ordicode actually owes. In the meantime Ordicode will pay the
monthly charges raised against it on the City of Johannesburg’s account, save
to the extent that it declares a dispute relating to any specific portion of the
accounts rendered after the date of my order.
18 Even though counsel were in broad agreement with the process I have
outlined, I do not think it would be right to suggest that counsel agreed to the
order I will make. However, both counsel made useful submissions in
refinement of the order. Moreover, the process I have outlined has the signal
virtue of being capable of embodiment in an order I can grant using my
ordinary fact-finding powers.
19 For all these reasons, I make the following order –
19.1 The parties must debate the first respondent’s August 2025 account
in respect of electricity charges levied against the applicant’s
10
property at ERF 5352, 85 Wolmarans Street, Johannesburg, by no
later than Friday 3 October 2025. The debatement must take place
during or after a meeting between each party’s authorised
representatives. The respondents must ensure that the meeting is
attended by a functionary or functionaries with personal knowledge
of the property and the state of its accounts and electricity meters.
19.2 In the event that the parties agree on the amount due and payable
for electricity charges as at the date of the August 2025 account, the
fact of that agreement must be placed on affidavit before Wilson J,
together with an agreed order to be made on this application, by no
later than 10 October 2025.
19.3 In the event that the parties cannot agree on the amount due and
payable for electricity charges as at the date of the August 2025
account, the applicant must file an affidavit setting out a list of
objections to the August 2025 electricity account by no later than 17
October 2025, together with its own account of the amount due and
payable for electricity charges as at the date of the August 2025
account, calculated in accordance with the applicable tariffs and
bylaws.
19.4 The respondents must, within two weeks of receipt of the affidavit
required in terms of paragraph 19.3 above, file an affidavit setting out
their own account of the amount due and payable for electricity
charges as at the date of the August 2025 account, calculated in
accordance with the applicable tariffs and bylaws.