REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(I) REPORTA BLE : NO
(2) OF INTERES T TO OTHER JU;...GES: NO
(3) RE VISED: NO
t;,
Dole: 16 October 2025 E van der Schyff
In the matter between
RAYAL INDUSTRIAL PROPR IETARY LIMITED
and
CITY OF TSHWAN E METROPOLITAN MUNIC IPALITY
JUDGMENT
Van der Schyff J
CASE NO.: 2025-163867
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
[1] The applicants approached the urgent court for interdictory relief on Friday 12
September 2025 after its electricity supply was terminated. The respondent filed a
notice of intention to oppose. An interim interdict was granted and the respondent
was ordered to reconnect the electricity supply in question, pending the finalization
of the urgent application on 23 September 2025.
2
[2] The respondent did not subsequently file any answering affidavit. The parties,
however, reached a settlement on several aspects, save the issue of the costs of
the application.
[3] On 23 September 2025, the court was presented with a draft order. The parties
agreed to the whole of the order, save the issue of costs. The applicant sought a
costs order to be granted and the respondent sought costs to be reserved.
[4] I granted the order in the terms agreed to, and in relation to costs, ordered that the
respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application. These costs were to
include the costs of 12 and 23 September 2025 and counsel's costs on scale C.
[5] A request for reasons for the costs order, dated 3·October 2025, was uploaded to •
the Caseline's file, and thus filed with the court, on 14 October 2025.
[6] In considering the 'issue of costs, the court was only privy to the information set out
in the applicant's founding affidavit. The applicant informed the court of the litigation
history between the parties. The applicant drew the court's attention to existing court
orders wherein the respondent was ordered, among others, not to terminate the
applicant's power supply unless the applicant failed to pay its account to the
respondent. The applicant further contended that it has always paid its electricity
account as and when the same fell due.
[7] A court order also exists wherein the respondent, who previously cut the applicants
water supply, was instructed to reconnect the water supply to the applicant's
premises pending the finalisation of an action instituted by the respondent against
the applicant, and not to terminate same for as long as the applicant paid for its
usage of water from then on. The applicant averred that it has faithfully been paying
for its water consumption every month since the order was granted.
[8] Despite this history, and the existence of the court orders indicated above, the
[8] Despite this history, and the existence of the court orders indicated above, the
respondent terminated the applicant's power supply on 11 September 2025 without
any prior notice. This termination led to the urgent court application after the
applicant attempted to reach out to the respondent to no avail.
2
3
[9] There is only one version before the court. On the version before the court the
respondent acted contrary to existing court orders when it cut the applicant's power
supply. This version supported a finding that the applicant's costs be paid by the
respondent.
[1 O] In determining the scale of costs, I had regard to the history, the complexity and the
urgency of the matter, as well as the applicant's counsel seniority.
E van der Schyff.
Judge of the High Court
De livered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of
this matter on Case Lines. In the event that there is a discrepancy between the date the judgment
is signed and the date it is uploaded to Caselines, the date the judgment is uploaded to
Caselines is deemed to be the date that the judgment is handed down .
For the applicant:
Instructed by:
For the respondent:
Instructed by:
Date of the hearing:
Date of reasons:
3
Adv . SG Maritz SC
Grosskopf Attorneys
Adv. U Ah ir
Lawtons Africa Inc
23 September 2025
16 October 2025