IN THE H IGH COU R T OF SO U TH AF R ICA
GA U TE NG DIVIS ION, PR ETOR IA
Case Number : 2025/137620
(l) REPORTA BLE: ~ /NO
(2) O F INTEREST TO O THER JUDG ES: ~ /N O
(3) REVISED .
31 O ctober 2025
SIG NATURE DATE
In the application of:
AFRIFORUM NPC
and
NATIONAL ENERGY REGULATOR OF SOUTH AFRICA
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION
ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED
AMAHLATHI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
BLOUBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
DIHLABENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
DIPALESENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
DITSOBOTLA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Ap plicant
1 st Responden t
2nd Responden t
3rd Responden t
4th Responden t
5th Responden t
6th Responden t
7th Responden t
8th Responden t
Page 2
eDUMBE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 9th Respondent
KAMIESBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 10th Respondent
MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 11th Respondent
MOSSEL BAY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 12th Respondent
CITY OF EKURHULENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 13th Respondent
CITY OF CAPE TOWN LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 14th Respondent
192 LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES 15th – 181th Respondents
JUDGMENT
LABUSCHAGNE J
THE ORDER:
Having read the papers and having heard counsel
IT IS ORDERED
[1] That the forms, service and time periods provided for in the Uniform Rules of
Court are dispensed with and the application is heard on the basis or urgency
in terms of rule 6(12).
[2] NERSA’s implementation of the public participation process of the notice and
comment procedure elected by it by , as contemplated in section 4(1) and (3)
of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”) utilised
during the consideration and approval of the financial year 2025/2026
Page 3
municipal tariff applications (“the approvals”) is declared invalid in terms of
section 172(1)(a) of the Constitution.
[3] In terms of section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, and despite the declaration
of invalidity set out in paragraph 2 above, the approvals are not set aside.
[4] A rule nisi is issued , returnable on 18 November 2025, calling on any
respondent to show cause why the following order should not be made:
4.1 NERSA is directed to timeously comply with its obligations as public
entity, and as envisaged in section 35(c)(ii) of the Municipal Finance
Management Act, to timeously provide information and assistance to
municipalities to enable municipalities to prepare their budgets in
accordance with the processes set out in Chapter 4 of the MFMA. In
pursuance of the aforesaid, the following directions are issued:
4.1.1 By 31 January of every year, NERSA must give municipal
licensees written notice of bulk of wholesale tariffs at which
municipal licensees shall purchase electricity from Eskom, or
any other licensed generator, for the next financial year;
4.1.2 The notice referred to above shall in addition require
municipal licensees to submit their electricity tariff applications
by no later than 30 March of every year, failing which they run
the risk of no tariff increase being approved;
Page 4
4.1.3 NERSA is directed to comply with the provisions of section 4
of PAJA, and the regulations published in terms thereof , in
respect of whichever procedure for public participation it
chooses, in terms of section 4 of PAJA, for considering and
approving municipal electricity tariff applications;
4.1.4 For purposes of meaningful public participation, NERSA is
directed to publish every municipal electricity tariff application
along with its cost of supply study for that particular financial
year, in a manner that makes it accessible to the public,
provided that, where a municipal electricity tariff application
does not include a cost of supply study for the financial year,
NERSA must specifically state the absence of such costs of
supply study;
4.1.5 NERSA is directed to finalise the process of considering the
municipal electricity tariff applications timeously received and
communicate its decisions on or before 05 May of every year;
4.1.6 NERSA must simultaneously also publish all of the respective
decisions it reached on the municipal electricity tariff
applications received; and
4.1.7 NERSA may not unilaterally extend or deviate from the
aforesaid timeframes for applications timeously re ceived
without good cause and, if established, with prior notice to the
parties affected.
Page 5
4.2 Every municipality that submits an electricity tariff application must
take all reasonable steps to ensure that the public participation
process NERSA chooses regarding municipal tariff applications is
brought to the attention of the public within its jurisdiction.
[5] AfriForum shall forthwith cause this order to be served:
5.1 On all participating respondents’ attorneys of record, where such
attorneys have been appointed, by email;
5.2 On the Chief Executive Officer of Eskom, by the sheriff; and
5.3 On the municipalities in Annexure FA2 to the notice of motion, other
than those in paragraph 5.1 above, by email sen t to the municipal
managers.
[6] NERSA is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs
consequent upon the employment of two advocates, on Scale C, where so
employed
REASONS
[1] This matter served as a special allocation, having commenced in the urgent
court during October 2025. Due to the length of the papers the matter could
not be heard in the week of 14 October 2025 and was placed for hearing on
28 October 2025.
[2] AfriForum applied on the basis of urgency for an order on the following terms:
Page 6
“1. Dispensing with the forms and service provided for in the rules and
hearing the application as a matter of urgency.
2. That the first respondent’s public participation process in the form of
a notice and comment procedure as contemplated in section 4(1) and
(3) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, which
process was utilised during the consideration and of the FY2025/2026
Municipal Tariff applications, be declared invalid.
3. That the retrospective effect of the declaration of invalidity in
paragraph 2 above be suspended.
4. That the first respondent is interdicted and restrained as follows:
4.1 The first respondent must publish the notice calling for
municipalities to submit their electricity tariff applications by
no later than 10 November every year;
4.2 The above notice must require municipalities to submit their
electricity tariff applications by no later than 15 January each
year;
4.3 The first respondent must comply with the provisions of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 and the
regulations published under the Act, in whichever procedure
for public participation it chooses for consideration and
approving municipal electricity tariff applications;
Page 7
4.4 The first respondent must publish every electricity tariff
application along with its costs of supply study, whether new
or existing, in a manner that makes it accessible to the public
for the purpose of public participation;
4.4.1 The first respondent must specify, whenever
municipal electricity tariff applications are published
for public review, where an application does not
include the cost of supply/study;
4.5 That the first respondent must finalise the process of
considering the municipal electricity tariff application received
and reach a decision on or before 30 March every year;
4.6 The first respondent must publish all of the respective
decisions it reached on the municipal electricity tariff
applications received;
4.7 The first respondent may not extend or deviate from the
aforementioned timeframes unilaterally, without prior notice
and without good cause being shown.
5. Every municipality that submits and electricity tariff application must
take all reasonable steps to ensure that the public participation
process the first respondent chooses regarding municipal electricity
tariff applications is brought to the attention of the public within its
jurisdiction.
Page 8
6. In the alternative to paragraphs 4 and 5 above, and in the event that
the honourable court does not deem the interdict to be just and
equitable, it be declared that the Constitution requires the public
participation process embarked upon for the considera tion and
approval of municipal electricity tariff applications to be procedurally
rational, which requires the first respondent to meet the following
minimum criteria:
6.1 The first respondent is to publish the notice calling for
municipalities to submit their electricity tariff applications by no
later than 10 November every year;
6.2 The above notice is to require municipalities to submit their
electricity tariff applications by no later than 15 January each
year;
6.3 The first respondent is to comply with the provisions of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 and the
regulations published under the Act, in whichever procedure for
public participation it chooses for considering and approving
municipal electricity tariff applications;
6.4 The first respondent is to publish every electricity tariff
application along with its costs of supply/study, whether new or
existing, in a manner that makes it accessible to the public for
the purpose of public participation;
Page 9
6.4.1 The first respondent is to specify, whenever municipal
electricity tariff applications are published for public
review, where an application does not include a cost of
supply/study;
6.5 That the first respondent is to finalise the process of considering
the municipal electricity tariff application received and reach a
decision on or before 30 March every year;
6.6 The first respondent is to publish all of the respective decisions
it reached on the municipal electricity tariff applications received;
6.7 The first respondent may not extend or deviate from the
aforementioned timeframes unilaterally without prior notice and
without good cause being shown.
7. That it be declared that section 152 of the Constitution requires th at
every municipality that submits an electricity tariff application is to take
all reasonable steps to ensure that the public participation process the
first respondent chooses regarding municipal electricity tariff
applications is brought to the attention of the public within its
jurisdiction.
8. That the first respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the application,
including the costs of two counsel, and in the event that any of the
other respondents unsuccessfully opposing the application, that such
respondents and the first respondent be ordered to pay the cost s of
Page 10
the application, including the cost s of two counsel, jointly and
severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
9. Such further or alternative relief as the court may grant.”
[3] The application was opposed by the first respondent (NERSA). It was also
initially opposed by the City of Ekurhuleni , Mogale City and the City of
Johannesburg. The City of Cape Town merely challenges the dates suggested
in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the notice of motion referred to above.
[4] SALGA initially also opposed but indicated that its primary concern lies in the
date referred to in paragraph 4.1 of the notice of motion (i.e. 10 November of
every year).
[5] The City of Cape Town suggests that the date in paragraph 4.2 of the notice
of motion (15 January of each year) is too early and that this date should be
moved to 20 March.
[6] The City of Cape Town further suggests that a further milestone be inserted
in the suggested timeline, i.e. that NERSA must determine the electricity tariff
for bulk sales by Eskom to its customers by the end of January of every year.
[7] In the course of argument AfriForum accepted the comments and suggestions
of those municipalities that intended opposing. This resulted in an amended
time frame being mooted. However, as the respondents were brought to court
on the initial notice of motion and have not participated, or have abided, a rule
nisi was suggested.
Page 11
[8] The applicant and the City of Cape Town lament the consistent lateness of
NERSA in determining and publishing the tariff for bulk sales of electricity by
Eskom to its customers and the late response to municipalities’ applications
to NERSA for approval of their municipal tariffs. The latter applications depend
on the tariff determination of bulk s ales by ESKOM as the municipal tariff
consists of a NERSA approved mark up on the ESKOM tariff.
[9] The dilemma is that the financial year of every municipality commences on 1
July of every year and by 1 July every municipality must adopt a budget. The
draft budget needs to be published at least 90 days before 1 July. As the sale
to end users of electricity is one of the pillars of municipal revenue, the need
for clarity on the Eskom bulk tariff and NERSA’s response to municipal tariff
applications, points to a timeframe within which NERSA must act so that
municipalities can lawfully adopt budgets.
[10] As it is a statutory requirement that municipalities may only charge an
approved tariff, the timing of NERSA’s approvals is vital.
[11] The consistent lateness of NERSA’s responses has adversely affected the
public’s right to participate in the finalisation of firstly budgets, and secondly
municipal electricity tariffs as an anchor component of budgeting for municipal
revenue.
[12] NERSA adopted a notice and comment procedure in terms of section 4(1) and
4(3) of PAJA. That decision is not reviewable in terms of PAJA and is not
challenged. The applicant however contends that the implementation of that
notice and comment procedure is constitutionally invalid because of the
Page 12
consistent lateness and inadequacy of NERSA’s notifications on the
applications for approval of municipal tariffs for electricity sales.
[13] The time within which the public could comment was reduced to such an
extent that in certain instances there was no participation at all. There are a
number of instances. One will suffice. In the case of Mogale City , its
application was published on 19 June 2025, and N ERSA took a decision
approving the tariff the next day. There was no public participation as none
was possible.
[14] Further, NERSA has adopted the position that the cost of sale studies that
accompany the tariff applications are confidential, and they were not published
so that the public could comment . Further, contrary to Regulation 18 of the
PAJA Regulations, NERSA does not publish its notices in the Government
Gazette and two newspapers, and in more than one official language. It merely
publishes on the NERSA website and social media, citing the other methods
prescribed as outdated.
[15] The application is opposed by NERSA, who contends that it sets deadlines for
municipalities by which dates applications for approval of municipal electricity
tariffs need to be submitted to NERSA for approval. However, the bulk of
municipalities are not a dhering to the deadlin es and this in turn delays
NERSA’s decisions.
[16] NERSA contends that it is forced to deviate from the prescribed public
participation processes envisaged by section 4 of PAJA and the PAJA
Page 13
regulations due to circumstances forced upon it by tardy municipalities. As
PAJA permits deviations, NERSA denies any wrongdoing.
[17] NERSA contends that the relief sought is not urgent, that it has substantially
complied with its obligations and that the relief sought will cause judicial
overreach. It asserts its status as a specialist regulator to which the court
should show deference in determining its own timetable. This defence was
raised by the City of Ekurhuleni and the City of Johannesburg as well, but was
not advanced in argument
THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
[18] An electricity tariff is determined in terms of sec tion 15(1) of the Electricity
Regulation Act , 4 of 2006 and consists of a cost of supply by a n efficient
licensee together with a reasonable return. This section determines the
ESKOM application for its annual allowable revenue, which in turn determines
the ESKOM tariff . It is also the basis for a municipal tariff application which
likewise consists of cost of supply study and a reasonable mark-up.
[19] The NERSA process of approving tariffs runs in tandem with the process of
approving municipal budgets. Both processes require public participation. The
regulatory framework envisages cooperative governance by municipalities
and NERSA in respect of public participation in the process of approval of
budgets and municipal electricity tariffs. Administrative tardiness has muddied
the alignment that is required to ensure the lawful adoption of municipal
budgets.
Page 14
[20] Central to this matter is section 35 of the Municipal Finance Management Act
(MFMA) which reads in part:
“Promotion of co -operative government by national and provincial
institutions
35. National and provincial departments and public entities must –
…
(c) provide timely information and assistance to municipalities to
enable municipalities –
(i) …
(ii) to prepare their budgets in accordance with the processes set
out in Chapter 4 of this Act.”
[21] The Council of a municipality must for each financial year approve an annual
budget before the start of the financial year (section 16(1) of the MFMA). The
mayor of the municipality must table the annual budget at a Council meeting
at least 90 days before the start of the budget year (section 16(2) of the
MFMA).
[22] The budget therefore needs to be approved by Council no later than 30 June
as the financial year commences on 1 July.
Page 15
[23] A municipality’s electricity tariffs are an essential component of the municipal
budget. As the electricity tariffs have to be approved by NERSA, such
approval must be timeous and the information pertaining to it is to be provided
within a timeframe that permits the municipality to adopt a budget before 1
July.
[24] Section 15(1) of the ERA stipulates that NERSA’s setting of tariffs:
“(a) must enable an efficient licensee to recover the full cost of its licensed
activities, including a reasonable margin or return.”
[25] This has become known as the cost of supply methodology.
[26] Municipalities are precluded from charging any tariff for electricity other than
that determined or approved by NERSA (section 15(2)).
[27] The national government had formulated its Electricity Pricing Policy (EPP) in
Government Notice 13 98 of 19 December 2008. The document reflects a
number of policy positions of which Policy Position 2 and Policy Position 23
are relevant. Policy Position 2 provides that:
“(a) Electricity tariffs must reflect the efficient cost of rendering electricity
services as accurately as practical;
(b) The average level of all the tariffs must be set to recover the approved
revenue requirements; and that
(c) The tariff structures must be set to recover the costs as follows:
Page 16
(i) The energy cost for a particular customer category;
(ii) The network usage cost for a particular customer category; and
(iii) Service costs associated therewith.”
[28] Policy Position 23 requires electricity distributors to undertake the cost of
supply study every five years.
[29] NERSA for a number of years employed a benchmarking methodology where
a specific year’s tariff was merely adjusted by a markup, rather than with
reference to a cost of supply study. In Nelson Mandela Bay Business
Chambers NPC and Another v National Energy Regulator and Others
(63393/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 778 (20 October 2022), Kubushi J put an end
to the benchmarking process and directed that cost of supply methodology
had to be followed as required by section 15(1)(a) of the ERA and the EPP.
[30] NERSA has also formulated the cost of supply framework as well as a How
To guide.
[31] As far as public participation is concerned, section 4(1) of PAJA deals with
administrative action that materially and adversely affects the rights of the
public. In such an instance the administrator may decide to either hold public
enquiries or a notice and comment procedure may be followed, or a
combination of both (section 4(1)(a), (b) and (c)).
[32] Section 4(3) of PAJA determines that where an administrator decides to follow
a notice and comment procedure, as in this instance, the administrator must:
Page 17
32.1 Take appropriate steps to communicate the administrative action to
those likely to be materially and adversely affected by it and call for
comments from them.
32.2 Consider any comments received.
32.3 Decide whether or not to take the administrative action, with or without
changes; and
32.4 Comply with the procedures to be followed in connection with notice
and comment procedures, as prescribed.
[33] The regulations issued in terms of PAJA require the following:
33.1 The information concerning the propos ed administrative action must
be published by way of notice in the Government Gazette and a
newspaper or newspapers which collectively are distributed
throughout the Republic. This relates to administrative action that
affects the rights of the public thr oughout the Republic , as in this
instance (regulation 18(1)(a)).
33.2 Regulation 18(2) acquires the notice to include an invitation to
members of the public to submit comments with regard to the
proposed administrative action within a date not earlier than 30 days
from the date of publication of the notice (regulation 18(2)(a)).
33.3 The notice published in terms of regulation 18(1) must contain
sufficient information about the proposed administrative action to
Page 18
enable members of the public to submit meaningful comment
(regulation 18(3)(a)).
33.4 The notice must be published in at least two official languages and
must take into account the language preference or usage in the
province or area concerned (regulation 19).
[34] AfriForum contends that the public participation process for 2025 is defective
and constitutionally invalid. The reasons include that:
34.1 Cost of supply studies did not accompany notices to the public,
thereby depriving them from an opportunity of making meaningful
comments.
34.2 Insufficient notice was given.
34.3 The noti ces were not published in newspapers, but on NERSA’s
website and were not published in at least two official languages.
URGENCY
[35] The applicant’s case for urgency is that it cannot obtain effective redress in
the normal course as the issues it raises cannot be brought to court in time
before a new financial year commences, rendering the relief it seeks moot.
NERSA contends that the urgenc y is self-created due to a gap in the period
between the Afri Forum letter of demand of 27 June 2026 and launching the
application seven weeks later.
Page 19
[36] The facts demonstrate that NERSA was in respect of certain municipalities
still in the process of approving their tariff applications at that time. Some
approvals were only communicated after the new financial year had
commenced on 1 July. While an applicant in an urgent application must
explain any delay in launching its urgent application, this matter shows that
the facts were still emerging . The matter is complex, and it involves every
municipality in the country . In allowing time for respondents to respond,
generous time frames were permitted as the urgency dictated such an
approach.
[37] Taking the aforesaid into account I am satisfied that the application is urgent
as the applicant will not obtain substantial redress in due course.
COST OF SUPPLY STUDIES
[38] The position adopted by NERSA regarding the confidentiality of cost of supply
studies needs to be assessed. A tariff application and the decision on it
comprises two parts- the cost of supply and a reasonable return. The cost of
supply is in respect of an efficient licensee. This is a topic on which the public
have a right to be heard.
[39] The purpose of a cost of supply study is to demonstrate efficiency as licensee.
And secondly it serves the purpose of transparency - i.e. being open to
scrutiny. In AfriForum NPC v NERSA [202 4] ZAGPPHC 638 (8 July 2024)
the following is said at par [7] per De Vos AJ:
Page 20
“The cost of supply study serves a dual function. The first is to ensure that
municipalities efficiently distribute electricity. If municipalities are charging
more than the cost of supply study indicates is necessary, they are not
providing services efficiently. Municipalities' licenses are subject to them being
efficient licensees. A cost of supply study allows NERSA to test the efficiency
of the municipality's electricity distribution. The second is to ensure a
standardised and transparent process that end-users can engage with. These
twin principles of efficiency and transparency underpin the requirement of a
cost of supply study.”
[40] The history of local government has demo nstrated public anger and protest,
sometimes violent, regarding poor service delivery in many parts of the
country. There is understandable public interest, if not apprehension, about
efficient use of public resources. When a municipality applies to NERSA for a
tariff approval it must include a cost of supply study as the bas is for its case
for a reasonable return. The municipality can have no expectation of
confidentiality in respect an official document indicating how it intends
spending public funds in supplying an electricity service to rate payers. The
cost of supply study is a public document intended for public and official
scrutiny. This is demonstrated by the fact that n one of the municipalities has
contended that their cost of supply studies are confidential and should be kept
away from the public.
[41] How NERSA could unilaterally declare a cost of supply study as confidential
is beyond concerning. It did not publish this policy in advance . It is a public
Page 21
watchdog that has, due to this private policy, kept the public in the dark about
matters that directly concern the public.
[42] NERSA is a specialist public entity to which judicial deference is owed in
determining tariffs. But it is also duty bound to act in accordance with the law.
The inadequacy of notice to the public in respect of tariff applications, by not
including the cost of sales studies, is self-evident. The impression created is
that NERSA has become so adept that it does not require, or value , public
participation in respect of cost of sales studies. This would be contrary to the
law, as section 4 of PAJA requires the comments by the public to be taken
into consideration.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
[43] The PAJA Regulations are binding on NERSA. NERSA’s decisions need to
be communicated in the prescribed manner. Regulation 18 prescribes a 30
day period for public comment. It requires publication in the Government
Gazette and two newspapers in more than one official language.
[44] NERSA has unilaterally and as a policy decided not to comply with the PAJA
regulation 18. It has resorted to self-help, no doubt well intended, but contrary
to the law. To contend that there was substantial compliance because notice
was given, is an argument that cannot be countenanced where a deliberate
decision not to adhere to the law lies at the root (see Firstrand Bank Ltd v
Briedenhan 2022 (5) SA 215 (EC) at [52]).
Page 22
[45] Where modernisation is the reason for non -compliance, a change in the
regulations is a matter for the legislature to consider (Ibid. par [54]). Where a
lawful deviation can be motivated as permissible policy, an application to the
court to sanction such conduct is a minimum legality requirement for a
regulator enforcing licence conditions on licensees. It is not a law unto itself
but is empowered to regulate in terms of empowering provisions.
[46] In light of the manifold deficiencies in the implementation of the notice and
comment procedure for the FY2025/2026 it cannot pass constitutional muster
and must be declared invalid in terms of section 172(1)(a).
JUST AND EQUITABLE REMEDY
[47] The court has a wide discretion in respect of a just and equitable remedy in
terms of section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution. AfriForum in its notice of motion
seeks an order suspending the declaration of invalidity to preserve the status
quo. However, it is not clear for how long the suspension would be in place
and pending what. The uncertainty regarding the import of the declaration of
invalidity could trigger consequences that a n intended holding pattern,
preserving the status quo, was meant to avoid.
[48] The determination of a corrective remedy is a multi -layered enquiry in which
the public interest is a primary consideration . In All Pay Investment
Holdings (Pty)(Ltd) v CEO, SASSA 2014 (4) SA 179 (CC) the following was
stated in the context of pensions:
Page 23
“[32] This corrective principle operates at different levels. First, it must be
applied to correct the wrongs that led to the declaration of invalidity in
the particular case. This must be done by having due regard to the
constitutional principles governing public procurement, as well as the
more specific purposes of the Agency Act. S econd, in the context of
public-procurement matters generally, priority should be given to the
public good. This means that the public interest must be assessed not
only in relation to the immediate consequences of invalidity — in this
case the setting -aside of the contract between SASSA and Cash
Paymaster — but also in relation to the effect of the order on future
procurement and social-security matters.
[33] The primacy of the public interest in procurement and social -security
matters must also be taken into account when the rights, responsibilities
and obligations of all affected persons are assessed. This means that
the enquiry cannot be one-dimensional. It must have a broader range.”
[49] The approval of a municipal budget, based on an approved electricity tariff,
has knock on effects. Third parties , like financiers, take financial decisions
based on the approved budget and regulate their affairs accordingly. It is
therefore important not to destabilise municipal revenue and to cause
uncertainty in the financial markets. I therefore find it more appropriate not to
set aside NERSA approvals of tariffs, despite the declaration of invalidity.
Page 24
CONCLUSION
[50] Meaningful public participation, as required by the process in section 4 of
PAJA w as fundamentally undermined by late notifications, inadequate
information and non-compliance w ith regulation 18 of the PAJA Regulations.
N ERSA 's implementation of its notice and commen t procedure in terms of
section 4 of PAJA is therefore constitutionally invalid.
[51] How ever, despite the declaration of invalidity, the N ERSA approvals of
municipal tariffs are not set aside.
[52] In the premises the order set out above is issued.
LABUSCHAGNE J
JUDG E O F TH E H IGH COUR T
DATE OF HEARING : 28 OCTOBER 2025
DATE JUDGEMENT DELIVERED 31 OCTOBER 2025
APPEARANCES:
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT: ADV BOTHA SC
ADV HUGO
Page 25
INSTRUCTED BY : HURTER SPIES ATTORNEYS
CONSEL FOR RESPONDENTS : ADV MAKHAJANE
COJ
: ADV SIBISI
INSTRUCTED BY : SSM ATTORNEYS
SALGA : ADV TSATSAWANE SC
: ADV NKABINDE
INSTRUCTED BY : HM CHAANE ATTORNEYS
CAPE TOWN : ADV BREITENBACH SC
: ADV REYNOLDS
INSTRUCTED BY : TIMOTHY AND TIMOTHY ATTORNEYS