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: 2026/062861
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
(4) Date: 13 April 2026
Signature:
In the matter between:
JOSEPHINE TSELANE TSOKU First Applicant
SHEILAH DAMARIES TSOKU Second Applicant
and
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY First Respondent
MUNICIPAL MANAGER: CITY OF TSHWANE Second Respondent
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
JUDGMENT
2
NYATHI J
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an urgent application in which the applicants seek relief arising from the
disconnection of electricity supply to the residential premises situated at 2[...]
I[...] Street, Andeon Extension 3[..], Pretoria.
2. The applicants seek, in substance:
o condonation for non-compliance with the Rules;
o a declaration that the disconnection of electricity was unlawful;
o an order directing the respondents to restore electricity supply;
o an interdict restraining future disconnection without due process; and
o costs on an attorney-and-client scale.
3. The respondents oppose the application, contending that the disconnection was
lawful, authorised by the City of Tshwane Standard Electricity Supply By -Laws,
and justified by alleged tampering with the prepaid electricity meter.
URGENCY
4. The electricity supply to the applicants’ home was disconnected on 5 March
2026. The application was launched on 18 March 2026 and set down for hearing
on 31 March 2026.
3
5. The applicants set out, in considerable detail, the steps taken immediately after
the disconnection to resolve the matter internally, including attending municipal
offices and engaging attorneys. These efforts culminated in correspondence
dated 10 March 2026, to which no meaningful response was forthcoming.
6. Electricity is an essential basic service. The applicants reside at the premises
with minor children. The deprivation of electricity impacts dignity, safety, health,
food security and personal security.
7. The test on urgency is whether the applicants can obtain substantial redress in
due course if the matter were to proceed in the ordinary course. In the context of
the persistent deprivation of an essential service, the answer must plainly be no.
8. I am satisfied that the urgency is genuine and not self -created.1
Non-compliance with the Rules is accordingly condoned and the matter is
properly before this Court as one of urgency.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9. The second applicant is the registered owner of the property. The first applicant
occupies the property together with minor children.
10. On 5 March 2026 municipal officials attended at the premises and disconnected
the electricity supply by removing the prepaid meter.
11. The applicants deny any tampering with the meter, aver that the meter box is
outside their yard and controlled by the municipality, and rely on the existence of
a lawful solar installation to explain reduced electricity consumption.
1 See Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality v Greyvenouw CC 2004 (2) SA 81 (SE).
4
12. The respondents allege that during an inspection conducted as part of an
enforcement initiative, tampering was discovered in the form of a bypass or
bridge, justifying immediate disconnection without notice in terms of the by-laws.
13. A dispute thus arises as to whether the respondents had prima facie evidence
of tampering sufficient to justify summary disconnection, and whether due
process was followed.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
14. The issues that arise are:
14.1 Whether the respondents had lawful authority to disconnect electricity
supply without prior notice;
14.2 Whether the respondents established prima facie evidence of meter
tampering;
14.3 Whether the disconnection complied with principles of legality and
procedural fairness; and
14.4 Whether the applicants are entitled to the relief sought.
THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
5
15. Municipalities are empowered, and indeed obliged, to prevent illegal electricity
connections and to enforce compliance with by -laws. However, the exercise of
such power constitutes administrative action and must comply with the
Constitution, the principle of legality, and applicable statutory requirements.
16. Even where by -laws permit immediate disconnection without notice, the
existence of prima facie evidence justifying such drastic action is a jurisdictional
fact.
17. Self-help by an organ of state is impermissible. Courts have consistently held
that municipalities may not unilaterally deprive residents of basic services absent
lawful justification and fair procedure.
18. Where factual disputes arise in motion proceedings, the version of the
respondent prevails only if it is bona fide, supported by objective evidence, and
not so untenable that it can be rejected on the papers.
EVALUATION
Prima Facie Evidence of Tampering
19. The respondents rely primarily on photographs, a job card, and confirmatory
affidavits from municipal officials.
20. While photographs are attached, they are not accompanied by sufficient
contextual evidence establishing:
• when, how, and by whom the alleged tampering occurred;
• that the applicants had access or control over the meter installation; or
6
• that the condition observed could not reasonably be attributable to other
causes.
21. The applicants’ version that the meter box is locked and controlled by the
municipality is not meaningfully disputed.
22. In addition, the evidence reveals that initial explanations provided to the
applicant related to low consumption , with meter tampering being raised
thereafter. This lends weight to the applicants’ contention that the tampering
allegation emerged as an ex post facto justification.
23. On the papers before Court, I am not satisfied that the respondents established
reliable prima facie proof of tampering sufficient to justify immediate
disconnection without prior notice.
Procedural Fairness
24. It is common cause that no pre -termination notice was issued prior to
disconnection. Any notice furnished was provided after the electricity had already
been disconnected.
25. Even where by -laws authorise immediate action, such power must be exercised
rationally and proportionately. The wholesale removal of electricity supply to a
household with minor children, in circumstances where evidence of wrongdoing
is disputed, demands careful procedural safeguards.
26. The respondents’ conduct amounts to a form of self-help, which the rule of law
does not tolerate.
FINAL INTERDICT
7
27. The respondents argued that a final interdict impermissibly restrains statutory
powers. That submission is misplaced.
28. The relief sought does not prevent the respondents from enforcing the law. It
restrains only unlawful disconnection without due process . Lawful
enforcement remains open to the respondents, subject to compliance with
constitutional and legal requirements.
COSTS
29. The applicants sought a punitive costs order. While the respondents’ conduct
was heavy-handed, I am not persuaded that it rises to the exceptional threshold
required for attorney-and-client costs.
30. Costs should follow the result on the ordinary party-and-party scale.
ORDER
31. In the result, the following order is made:
32. Non-compliance by the applicants with the Rules of Court relating to form,
service and time periods is condoned, and the matter is heard as one of urgency.
33. The decision and conduct of the first and second respondents in disconnecting
the electricity supply to the premises situated at 2[...] I[...] Street, Andeon
Extension 3[…], Pretoria are declared unlawful.
8
34. The first and second respondents are ordered to restore electricity supply to
the said premises within 24 hours of service of this order.
35. The respondents are interdicted and restrained from disconnecting electricity
supply to the said premises without following due process and without lawful
justification.
36. The respondents shall pay the costs of this application, jointly and severally, on
the party-and-party scale B.
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of hearing: 01 April 2026
Date of Judgment: 13 April 2026
Appearances:
On behalf of the Applicants: Adv. MG Skhosana
Attorneys for the Applicants: Moela Attorneys Inc.
On behalf of the Respondents: Adv. K Bokaba
Attorneys for the Respondent: Marivate Attorneys.
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 13 April 2026.