SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 190477/2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
(4) Date: 10 December 2025
Signature:
In the matter between:
TECH SPARES CC Applicant
And
THE CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Respondent
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
NYATHI J
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] This is Part A of a composite application brought by the applicant, Tech
Spares CC, for urgent interdictory relief compelling the City of Tshwane to
restore and not disconnect electricity to the property from which the
applicant conducts its business, pending the adjudication of Part B (a
2
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (“PAJA) 1 review) and Part C
(declarator/rectification of lease terms) in the ordinary course.
[2] The disconnection occurred on 6 October 2025 after the respondent gave a
series of demands culminating in a disconnection notice. The respondent
avers arrears exceeding R3 823 194.58 and contends that the applicant has
refused to pay for utilities and rental since July 2024.
[3] The applicant’s case is founded on (a) the lease agreement dating back to
1997, under which, it says, rates, water and electricity are included in the
rental, (b) compliance with its obligations, (c) an unlawful, prejudicial
disconnection jeopardising its business, and (d) the absence of an adequate
alternative remedy pending review and contract clarification.
[4] The respondent opposes urgency and merits, saying the disconnection
followed due process, the credit control and by -laws permit disconnection
for non -payment, and the applicant’s asserted rights are reciprocal and
conditional upon payment. It further challenges the prospects of Parts B and
C and invokes lis pendens due to an extant action under case number
33433/22.
B. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN PART A
[5] Four issues arise:
5.1 Urgency under Rule 6(12).
5.2 Whether the applicant has met the requirements for an
interdict (final or interim) pending Part B and C.
5.3 The lawfulness of the respondent’s disconnection under its
statutes/by-laws and policy, vis-à-vis the lease.
5.4 Appropriate relief and costs.
C. URGENCY
[6] The applicant served the urgent application on 17 October 2025 for hearing
on 21 October 2025. It pleads severe commercial prejudice, including the
inability to trade and loss of long -term supplier relationships, and contends
that substantial redress in due course would be unavailable.
1 Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.
3
[7] The respondent says urgency is self -created: repeated demands were
addressed to the applicant since 2024; the applicant elected to withhold
payment from July 2024; and the timeframes afforded to the Municipality
were unreasonably short and contrary to practice directives.
[8] The standard is settled: an applicant must explicitly set out circumstances
rendering the matter urgent and demonstrate absence of substantial redress
in the ordinary course; urgency is not inherent in the type of relief but in the
circumstances. The applicant invokes Luna Meubel , East Rock Trading ,
Chief Lesapo and Chung-Fung.2 The respondent similarly relies on East
Rock Trading, Luna Meubel and urgent-roll jurisprudence, and on Van der
Linde v Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality ,3 cautioning that commercial
obligations to third parties and ongoing arrears do not, without more, render
a matter urgent.
[9] On the papers, the disconnection is a current, ongoing infringement with
concrete effects on the applicant’s business continuity. While some delay
between 6 October and 17 October exists, it is not excessive in context. The
applicant’s case on absence of substantial redress (loss of operations and
clientele) is persuasive, and the prejudice from continued disconnection is
immediate. Nonetheless, the compressed timetable and failure to provide
time for a reply contributed to an adjournment and warranted costs
reservations.
[10] I am satisfied that the matter warrants enrolment on the urgent roll, but the
degree of urgency must inform the shape of any interim relief (including
conditions ensuring fiscal sustainability and fairness).
D. INTERDICT: APPLICABLE TEST
[11] The applicant frames Part A as final relief (restore and prohibit
disconnection) pending Part B and C. Practically and doctrinally, Part A is
interim relief that preserves the status quo , assessed on the well -known
2 Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin (Ua Makin's Furnisher Manufacturers) 1977 (4) SA 135 (W) at
136H.; East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd and Others [2012] JOL
28244 (GSJ) at para 6.; Chief Lesapo v North West Agricultural Bank and another [1999] ZACC 16; 2000 (1)
SA 409 (CC) at [13], [16] & [22].; Chung -Fung (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mayfair Residents Association and
Others (2023/080436) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1162 (13 October 2023) at [23] to [24].
3 Van Der Linde v Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (121281/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1291 (19
November 2024).
4
requirements: prima facie right, reasonable apprehension of irreparable
harm, balance of convenience, and no alternative satisfactory remedy. The
applicant also pleads a clear right under the lease.
[12] The respondent contends the right to municipal services is conditional upon
payment; due process was observed; amounts are substantially in arrears;
and credit control/by -laws entitle disconnection. It argues the applicant has
an alternative remedy —payment arrangement or settlement of undisputed
charges—and relies on Vresthena and Van der Linde to caution against
orders that effectively compel indefinite supply in the absence of payment.
E. PRIMA FACIE RIGHT
[13] The applicant relies on an historic lease (1997) which, it says, includes
rates, water, and electricity in the rental. This, if correct, would mean the
respondent’s claim for separate utility payments is contractually misplaced.
[14] The respondent disputes this reading, pointing to clauses 2 –4 of the lease
(as pleaded) to assert the applicant is liable for utilities and rental, and
argues that any interpretive dispute must be resolved per the principles
enunciated in Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality
(“Endumeni”).4 It further notes the Municipality has pending action
(33433/22) and invokes lis pendens for Part C.
[15] Given the contradictory interpretations and the incomplete lease text on
these papers, the applicant has established at best a prima facie right, open
to some doubt, sufficient for interim protection subject to conditions, but
insufficient for unqualified, indefinite compulsion of supply.
F. IRREPARABLE HARM AND ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
[16] The applicant demonstrates ongoing harm: inability to trade, risk of closure,
and loss of relationships. That harm is current and not readily compensable.
[17] The respondent counters that the applicant can avert harm by paying
arrears, entering into a payment arrangement under credit control by -laws,
arrears, entering into a payment arrangement under credit control by -laws,
4 Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA 296 (SCA)
5
and/or paying undisputed charges pending the resolution of disputes; it says
harm flows from the applicant’s own non-payment.
[18] While payment arrangements may be an alternative, they presuppose a
common understanding of the correct account and charge allocation —
precisely what is disputed. On balance, absent a structured interim
mechanism, the harm is not adequately addressed.
G. BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE AND LEGALITY
[19] Municipality must ensure financially sustainable service provision, develop a
culture of payment, and may disconnect for non -payment under credit
control instruments and electricity by -laws (Section 21), after notice. The
respondent claims it gave letters of demand, a final demand (3 September
2025), and a disconnection notice (6 October 2025).
[20] The applicant disputes liability (including address misallocation and a mixed
account allegedly tied to a different property) and says its Section 102(2)
dispute and Section 62 appeal rights were left unresolved. It seeks
protection pending the orderly adjudication of Part B/C.
[21] The balance of convenience favours conditional interim relief that preserves
operations while protecting the Municipality’s fiscal interests, avoids the
“chilling effect” criticised in City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v
Vresthena (Pty) Ltd , (“Vresthena”)5 and regulates payment pending the
merits. An unqualified order compelling ongoing supply without payment
safeguards is untenable.
H. SHAPE OF APPROPRIATE INTERIM RELIEF
[22] In keeping with the caution in Vresthena, any interim order must:
a. be time-limited;
b. tie relief to steps regulating Part B/C;
c. require payment of current, undisputed charges and reasonable
interim contributions toward disputed amounts; and
d. preserve the City’s credit control rights in case of non -compliance
with the interim regime.
5 City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others [2024] ZASCA 51.
6
[23] The respondent indicates the Credit Control Policy and By-laws contemplate
payment arrangements, minimum payments, and continuing payment of
undisputed charges despite disputes. An interim regime consistent with
those instruments is appropriate.
I. OBSERVATION ON PARTS B AND C (WITHOUT DECIDING)
[24] The respondent challenges PAJA timing (180 days) and exhaustion of
internal remedies, citing Sasol Chevron 6 as authorities; it also raises lis
pendens for lease rectification and Endumeni interpretation principles.
Those are complex merits reserved for the ordinary course. The
observations reinforce the need for time -boxed interim relief and process
milestones for the intended review/contract proceedings.
J. COSTS
[25] As to the adjournment on 22 October 2025 attributed to timetable
compression, the respondent seeks wasted costs. The applicant seeks
scale C costs on Part A. Given partial success and the parties’ respective
conduct, costs will be costs in the cause of Part B/C, save for the wasted
costs of 22 October 2025, which the applicant shall pay.
ORDER:
[26] The matter is enrolled and determined as urgent under Rule 6(12).
[27] Interim restoration: The respondent is directed to forthwith restore electricity
supply to Remaining Extent Erf 1[...], W[...] , Pretoria, pending final
determination of Part B and Part C, subject to the conditions below.
[28] Payment conditions (interim regime):
6 Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Sasol Chevron Holdings Limited (1044/2020) [2022] ZASCA
56; 85 SATC 216 (22 April 2022), (as approved on appeal by the Constitutional Court in Sasol Chevron
Holdings Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service [2023] ZACC 30).
7
28.1 Within 5 court days of this order, the parties shall convene
and conclude a written interim payment arrangement
consistent with the respondent’s Credit Control Policy/By -
laws, recording:
(a) the current monthly, undisputed charges for
electricity (and any other services) to be fully paid on
due date; and
(b) an interim monthly contribution toward the disputed
arrears (without prejudice), set at R250,000 per
month or such other amount as the parties agree in
writing, pending adjudication in Part B/C.
28.2 The applicant shall continue to pay all current , undisputed
amounts timeously during the pendency of Part B/C.
28.3 Failure by applicant to comply with 28.1(b) or 28.2 for two
consecutive billing cycles shall entitle the respondent, on 48
hours’ written notice, to approach this Court on the same
papers, supplemented as necessary, for leave to disconnect
pending Part B/C.
[29] Process milestones:
29.1 The applicant shall launch Part B (PAJA review) within 30
calendar days of this order and prosecute it diligently
according to the Rules; any condonation or internal -remedy
issues shall be addressed upfront in the review papers.
29.2 The applicant shall launch Part C (declarator/rectification)
within 45 calendar days, unless the parties agree in writing
to consolidate or stay those issues in favour of the pending
action 33433/22, subject to case management directions.
[30] Time limit: The interim relief in paragraphs 27 –29 shall lapse 12 months
from the date of this order unless extended by further order upon good
cause shown; nothing herein precludes either party from seeking
case-management directions to expedite the determination of Part B/C.
COSTS:
8
[31] The wasted costs occasioned by the adjournment on 22 October 2025 are
to be paid by the applicant. Further costs in Part A are costs in the cause of
Part B/C.
____________________
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of hearing: 29/10/2025
Date of Judgment: 10 December 2025
On behalf of the Applicants: Mr. C. Reddy
Instructed by: Kutumela-Sithole Attorneys, Pretoria.
On behalf of the Respondent: Mr L.A. Visser
Instructed by: Holland-Muter Attorneys, Pretoria.
Delivery: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
legal representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform.
The date for hand-down is deemed to be 10/12/2025.