About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 327
|
|
K2012190864 (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg and Another (2024/114615) [2026] ZAGPJHC 327 (26 March 2026)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 2024-114615
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)
REVISED:
In
the matter between:
K2012190864
(PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
CITY
OF JOHANNESBURG
METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Respondent
This
judgment was handed down electronically and by circulation to the
Parties’ legal representatives by a way of email and
shall be
uploa\ded on caselines/courtonline. The date for hand down is deemed
to be on ____________________
JUDGMNET
MOGOTSI
AJ
Introduction
1.
This is an application concerning a protracted municipal billing
dispute between the parties. The matter arises from what
the
Applicant describes as exorbitant and incorrect electricity and water
charges levied by the Respondent over a sustained period.
Background
2.
The Applicant was aggrieved by the Respondent's levies and
launched an application, which culminated in Terment AJ's order dated
26 September 2023. That order directed the Respondent to rectify the
Applicant's account for the relevant period and compelled
the parties
to engage in a debatement process. The parties, in vain, held two
debatement meetings, and the Applicant launched the
present
application.
Relevant Factual
Matrix
3.
The Applicant settled all historical arrears in late 2018.
Thereafter, the Respondent levied the following four electricity
charges:
a
November 2018: R497 774.25
b
December 2018: R151 433.53
c
January 2019: R233 359.75
d
February 2019: R239 137.36
4.
The Respondent's contractor, Mr G F Losch, attended the
Applicant's property and, upon inspecting the meter, concluded that
the
anomalously high readings were caused by an incorrectly connected
electricity meter. The Applicant provided the Respondent with
photographic evidence of the contractor's attendance and the
defective meter.
5.
Regarding water charges, the Applicant closed the water supply
to the relevant portion of the property in November 2023. Despite
this, and notwithstanding the Respondent's awareness of the situation
since the first debatement meeting in April 2024, the Respondent
continued to levy fluctuating estimated water charges.
Issues for
Determination
6.
Firstly,
this court is called upon to determine whether the current
application constitutes an impermissible relitigation of issues
already disposed of by Terment AJ's order of 26 September 2023; and
second, if not, whether the Applicant has exhausted the Respondent's
internal dispute resolution mechanisms as required by section 102 of
the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act
[1]
('the Systems Act') and the Respondent's Credit Control and Debt
Collection Policy, before approaching this court.
The Applicant's
Submissions
7.
The Applicant counsel correctly, in my view, conceded that the
parties, the facts and the relief sought are the same as those in
previous matter that led to the Terment order.
The
Respondent's Submissions
8.
The Respondent's counsel submitted that the Applicant is
impermissibly attempting to relitigate issues already determined and
that
the present application constitutes an abuse of process,
analogous to the doctrine of lis pendens.
9.
The Respondent further contends that the Applicant failed to
follow the mandatory internal dispute resolution procedure prescribed
by section 102(2) of the Systems Act and clause 16 of the
Respondent's Credit Control and Debt Collection Policy. That
procedure
requires a consumer first to lodge a specific query, and
thereafter, if dissatisfied after 30 days, to declare a formal
dispute.
The Applicant has not tendered proof of compliance with this
procedure.
Applicable Legal
Principles
10.
The
right of a municipal consumer to challenge incorrect accounts is well
established. In Rademan v Moqhaka Local Municipality and
Others
[2]
,
the Constitutional Court confirmed that municipalities are
constitutionally obliged to bill consumers accurately and that
consumers
retain the right to dispute and withhold payment of
disputed amounts, provided they comply with the prescribed processes.
11.
The
internal dispute resolution requirement under section 102 of the
Systems Act is a condition precedent to judicial relief in
municipal
billing disputes. In City of Cape Town v Khaya Projects (Pty) Ltd and
Others
[3]
[2015] ZAWCHC 63
, the
court confirmed that failure to exhaust internal remedies before
approaching the court is, in principle, fatal to the relief
sought,
absent exceptional circumstances.
12.
Regarding
relitigation, the principle of res judicata requires that the same
parties may not relitigate a cause of action that has
been finally
determined. The requirements were articulated in Bafokeng Tribe v
Impala Platinum Ltd and Others
[4]
as follows: the parties, the cause of action, and the relief sought
must be the same. Where a new cause of action has arisen from
events
after the original judgment, relitigation is not established.
13.
Similarly,
the doctrine of lis pendens applies only where litigation is
presently pending between the same parties on the same cause
of
action and for the same relief.
[5]
Where the prior proceedings have been finalised, lis pendens cannot
apply.
Analysis
14.
The Applicant’s counsel correctly conceded that the
current application is based on substantially the same cause of
action
as the previous matter that culminated in Terment AJ's order.
Accordingly, I find that the present application impermissibly
relitigates the earlier proceedings. It follows that the inquiry into
the Applicant’s compliance with the internal dispute
resolution
requirements becomes moot.
Costs
15.
The Respondent's dilatory and uncooperative conduct in
resolving the underlying billing dispute has materially contributed
to the
present litigation. Consequently, I am inclined to deviate
from the established principle that costs follow the result. Each
party
shall accordingly bear its own costs.
Order
In
the premises, the following order is made:
1.
The application is dismissed.
2.
Each party is to bear its own costs.
P
J MOGOTSI
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Appearances
Counsel
for applicant:
Attorney
for applicant:
Counsel
for respondents:
Attorney
for respondents:
Date
heard:
Date
of Judgment:
[1]
Municipal
Systems Act
[1]
32 of
2000
[2]
2013
(4) SA 225 (CC
[3]
[2015]
ZAWCHC 63
[4]
[5]
Nestlé
(South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Mars Inc
2001 (4) SA 542
(SCA)