IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
Case no. 2023-077080
In the matter between:
ORDICODE (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG First Respondent
CITY POWER (SOC) LTD Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
WILSON J:
1 On 9 September 2025, I ordered the parties to enter into a debatement of
the municipal electricity account rendered to the applicant, Ordicode, by the
first respondent, the City of Johannesburg. A meeting to facilitate the
debatement was apparently held, after which each party agreed to forward to
the other a statement of what they considered was owed on the account.
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
SIGNATURE DATE: 6 February 2026
2
2 The City never followed through on its undertaking to provide its estimate of
what was owed. Despite there being strong reasons to believe that
Ordicode’s electricity account is inaccurate (those reasons having been
recorded at paragraphs 12 and 13 of my decision in Ordicode (Pty) Ltd v City
of Johannesburg [2025] ZAGPJHC 865 (9 September 2025) ), the City
ultimately argued before me that it considered Ordicode’s electricity account
to be perfectly accurate.
3 For its part, Ordicode filed an affidavit, dated 20 October 2025, which
contained what it claimed were calculations done by an expert. On the basis
of those calculations, Ordicode claimed that it was entitled to a credit of R1
285 317.56 to reverse incorrectly levied electricity charges. Ordicode also
claimed that it was due further credits, which it did not quantify, in respect of
interest, penalties and tax levied on the electricity charges.
4 The City did not respond to Ordicode’s affidavit, and its erstwhile attorneys
withdrew from the case. On 20 November 2025, I issued a rule nisi calling on
the City to show cause why I should not direct it to credit Ordicode’s account
with R1 285 317.56, and interdict and restrain it from levying interest,
penalties and tax on that amount. With the assistance of new attorneys, the
City then filed an affidavit alleging that Ordicode’s calculations were based
on a so-called “reseller’s tariff” to which Ordicode was not entitled.
5 On 2 December 2025, I extended the rule to 20 January 2026, and granted
the parties leave to file further papers dealing with whether the credit was
incorrectly based on the reseller’s tariff. Further affidavits were filed, in which
Ordicode claimed that its calculations were not based on a reseller’s tariff,
3
but upon what it called a “ mixed-use residential” tariff, applicable to
buildings used for both residential and commercial purposes.
6 The City retorted that the re is no such thing as a “mixed-use residential”
tariff, but that “mixed-use” tariffs generally are merely varieties of a reseller’s
tariff. Besides, the City claimed, Ordicode could not reasonably expect to be
given the benefit of a mixed-use tariff, since, as is common cause before me,
there are two meters on its property – one of which measures the electricity
supplied to the commercially -tenanted portion of the property, and the other
of which measures electricity fed through to the residential occupants of the
property. In other words, there is simply no electricity being put to a mixed-
use.
7 The matter came back before me on 20 January 2026. At the hearing, Mr.
Sithole, who appeared for the City, produced and relied upon the “tariff book”
published by the second respondent, City Power. The parties were agreed
that the tariff book has the status of delegated legislation in the sense that it
forms part of the schedule of tariffs published by the City in terms of the
relevant empowering provisions of the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000.
8 The tariff book does not specifically provide for a “mixed- use residential”
tariff. Clause 6 of the tariff book , however, makes clear that a person who
supplies electricity to a multi -tenanted dwelling may apply to be designated
as a “reseller” of electricity, in which case certain “resellers’ tariffs” will apply.
These tariffs are available for multi -tenanted commercial buildings supplied
through a bulk meter (in which case a b usiness reseller’s tariff applies); for
multi-tenanted residential buildings supplied through a bul k meter (in which
4
case a residential reseller’s tariff applies); or for properties used for both
residential and commercial purposes (in which case, depending on how the
property is metered, business, residential, or both residential and business
resellers’ tariffs may apply). Mr. Sithole argued that these resellers’ tariffs are
the only tariffs available to mixed-use properties.
9 It was common cause that Ordicode had applied in the past to be designated
as a reseller of electricity, but that its application had been declined. For this
reason, Mr. Sithole submitted, Ordicode could not claim the benefit of a
reseller’s tariff for a mixed -use property. In any event, Mr. Sithole argued,
Ordicode would never qualify for a “mixed- use” tariff, since its commercial
and residential consumption is separately metered. Resellers’ tariffs of that
sort are only available where a property put to two different uses is supplied
electricity through a single meter.
10 Ms. Rodrigues, who appeared for Ordicode, could not really gainsay any of
this. The upshot is that the mixed- use tariff apparently employed to calculate
the credit Ordicode claimed lacks any discernible foundation in the
applicable tariff book. That, it seems to me, is reason enough to disallow the
credit Ordicode claims.
11 That result leaves me with a sense of unease. The City appears to have
prevailed in this case not by proving that its electricity account is accurate,
but by disproving the extent to which it is inaccurate. For all the reasons
recorded in my judgment of 9 September 2025, I remain unconvinced that
Ordicode’s electricity account is correct. However, Ordicode has not shown
the extent to which the account is incorrect. Nor has Ordicode demonstrated
5
that its ability to identify what it truly owes depends on information that is
peculiarly within the respondents’ knowledge. In addition, there is no serious
dispute that Ordicode has not made regular payment on its electricity
account of amounts it accepts it owes.
12 For all these reasons, I do not think that I can grant Ordicode any relief. It
has not demonstrated the extent to which the City has overbilled it, and it
appears to have taken advantage of the ambiguity surrounding its electricity
account to justify a pattern of payment for its consumption which is, to put it
mildly, erratic.
13 The application will be dismissed, but I do not think that Ordicode should be
mulcted in costs. Ordicode approached me on the good- faith basis that its
account was wrong. T he City has plainly not demonstrated that the account
is correct. Substantiall y for this reason, the interim interdict granted by
Badenhorst AJ restraining the City from disconnecting services to the
property will also be extended by a month in order to allow Ordicode either to
make arrangements to pay its account as it stands, or to lodge a properly
delineated dispute about its indebtedness under section 102 (2) of the
Municipal Systems Act.
14 Accordingly –
14.1 The rule nisi is discharged.
14.2 The application is dismissed.
14.3 The interim interdict contained in paragraphs B1 and B2 of the
order of Badenhorst AJ in Ordicode (Pty) Ltd v City of
6
Johannesburg [2025] ZAGPJHC 13 (6 January 2025) is discharged
with effect from 7 March 2026.
14.4 Each party will pay their own costs.
S D J WILSON
Judge of the High Court
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal
representatives by email, by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
Caselines, and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information
Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 6 February 2026.
HEARD ON: 20 January 2026
DECIDED ON: 6 February 2026
For the Applicant: M Rodrigues
TNS Incorporated
For the Respondents: E Sithole
Madhlopa & Thenga Attorneys