IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NO T APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: ~/NO
Case number: 2025-203757
Date of hearing: 18 November 2025
Date delivered: 28 November 2025
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES : ~/NO
(3) ~
..... Q .. \\.\.-?.( ..... .
DATE SIGNATURE
In the application between:
RASENGA SHIBURI
CECILIA SELEMALE
PAULINE MAEMA
TEBOGO MABILETSA
SAMUEL MANGWANE
and
ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LTD
First Applicant
Second Applicant
Third Applicant
Fourth Applicant
Fifth Applicant
Respondent
1
This judgment is handed down electronically by the Judge whose
name is reflected herein, and is submitted to the parties or their legal
representative by email. This order is further uploaded to the
electronic file of CaseLines by the Judge or his Registrar. The date
of this order is deemed to be 28 November 2025.
JUDGMENT
SWANEPOEL J:
[1] The applicants are all residents of Jericho Village in the Madibeng
Local Municipality. The applicants all possess pre-paid electricity meters
through which they purchase electricity from the respondent. The
respondent is an organ of State which is statutorily tasked with providing
electricity to the residents of the Republic of South Africa.
[2] The applicants purport to act on behalf of all of the residents of
Jericho in this application, in which they seek the restoration of the
village's electricity supply that was terminated on 20 July 2025. The
respondent does not take issue with the applicants' locus standi, nor with
the relief that they seek on behalf of other persons. It does, however,
argue that the matter is not urgent. Furthermore, the respondent argues
that the restoration of the electricity supply would jeopardize the safety of
the electrical installation. Finally, the respondent argues that the
applicants do not have a Constitutional right to an uninterrupted power
supply, and they argue that the respondent is operating within the
parameters of its Code and regulations by refusing to restore electricity.
2
[3] A brief synopsis of the facts is as follows: On 20 July 2025 a
transformer supplying electricity to some 40 households in Jericho Village
failed, allegedly due to overloading from illegal and unmetered
connections. The outage was repeatedly reported to the respondent. As
part of its reconnection process, the respondent conducted an audit and
found that of the 40 households in the village, 22 were compliant and 18
had illegally connected to the transformer. The respondent says that it
has a process by which it reconnects failed transformers. Firstly, illegal
connections are removed. Then house-to-house audits are conducted.
Where illegal connections are found, a "tamper fine" of R 6 052.60 is
levied. Only once 60% or more of the households are found to be in good
standing is the transformer replaced.
[4] in this case the respondent issued tamper fines to all of the
households that were non-compliant, but none have paid their fines.
Consequently, the respondent refuses to restore the transformer.
URGENCY
[5] The respondent is no doubt correct that a lengthy period has gone
by since 20 July. The respondent argues that any urgency that there may
have been is self-created, and that the matter should be struck from the
roll. It is so, that for a period of some two months the fifth applicant
corresponded with the respondent in an attempt to obtain some form of
redress. He was unsuccessful in doing so. This application was launched
3
on 29 October 2025, some three months after the power supply was
interrupted.
[6] Ordinarily, a delay of this nature would result in a matter being
struck from the roll due to self-created urgency. However, one cannot
simply consider the time that has passed, without considering under what
circumstances the application is brought, and what the harm is that is still
ongoing.
[7] In this case, simply considering the make-up of South African
communities, we have a rural community which is, in all likelihood, not a
wealthy one, and its access to justice may not be as easy as for a city
based community. The applicants sought a resolution of the problem by
negotiating with the respondent, but have been met with the respondent's
reliance on its procedures and policies to refuse to restore power to the
community.
[8] In my view, the applicant's approach, in their particular
circumstances, was not unreasonable. I also consider that the applicant
and their community are suffering ongoing harm by the absence of
electricity. A modern society is unable to function without electricity.
Commerce is reliant on the internet, communications are jeopardized by
the absence of electricity, and as we are at the end of the year, many
students are reliant on electricity for their studies.
[9] In view of the above I find that the matter is urgent.
4
[1 O] The respondent has argued that it has an obligation to ensure the
safety of residents before the transformer is replaced. This argument is
disingenuous. It is in fact the failure of the non-compliant households to
pay the tamper fines that has motivated the respondent's failure to
replace the transformer. The respondent disregards the fact that very few
households in these circumstances would have the means to pay a
tamper fine. By refusing to restore power, the respondent is holding the
compliant households hostage in order to force the non-compliant
households to pay the fine, or at least to make part-payment and arrange
to pay the balance.
[11] I do not find it necessary to consider whether the respondent has
a statutory or Constitutional obligation to provide electricity to the village.
The applicants' right to receive electricity, in this case, is an incident of
their contractual relationship with the respondent. Their claim, and that of
the other compliant households, is therefore one for specific performance.
The fact that other persons may again connect illegally to the transformer
does not justify the respondent's refusal to supply the applicants, and the
other compliant households in the village, with electricity.
[12] The applicants seek an order that the electricity supply be restored
within 10 (ten) days. I have not heard evidence whether such a timeline
is feasible. Therefore, I will craft an order that imposes an obligation on
the respondent to immediately commence the process of restoring
electricity to compliant households and to complete the process as
expeditiously as possible.
5
[13] I make the following order:
(13.1] The matter is heard as one of urgency;
[13.2] The respondent shall immediately commence, and
continue to take all steps necessary to restore electricity to
the applicants and all compliant households within Jericho
Village as expeditiously as possible.
(13.3) The respondent shall pay the costs of the application
on Scale B.
Counsel for the Applicant:
Instructed by:
Counsel for the respondent:
Instructed by:
Heard on:
Judgment on:
SWANEPOELJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Adv. S Tshabalala
TT Mpshe Attorneys
Adv. T Mamanyuha
Ngeno & Mteto Inc
18 November 2025
28 November 2025
6