About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 497
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Mokhondo v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2026/092424) [2026] ZAGPPHC 497 (13 May 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE
NUMBER:
2026/092424
Reportable: NO
Circulate to Judges: NO
Circulate to Magistrates:
NO
Circulate to Regional
Magistrates NO
13 May 2026
In the matter between:-
MMAMA
ELIZABETH MOKHONDO
Applicant
and
ESKOM
HOLDINGS SOC LTD
Respondent
This judgment is handed
down by being electronically circulated in uploading it on
Case-Lines. The date of the judgment is
deemed to be 13 May
2026.
JUDGMENT
Reid
J
Introduction
[1]
T
his application is heard as a matter of urgency
in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court and this Court
condones the
non-compliance with the ordinary forms, service, and
time periods prescribed by the Rules of Court.
[2]
This is an opposed urgent application in which the applicant
seeks
final mandatory relief compelling the respondent to restore
electricity supply to her residential property in Hammanskraal.
The
applicant also seeks a punitive costs order on an attorney-and-client
scale.
[3]
The matter was enrolled for hearing on 5 May 2026. The respondent
opposes the application, raising several points
in limine
,
including that the applicant lacks
locus standi
, that the
founding affidavit is materially defective, and that the matter does
not meet the requirements for urgency under Rule
6(12) of the Uniform
Rules of Court.
[4]
The respondent ultimately opposed the application on the basis
that
the matter was not urgent, and that connecting the electricity
without the applicant paying a “tampering” fine,
the
respondent would be acting against its statutory regulations.
Material
background
[5]
The applicants power went out after heavy rains on 7 April
2026. When
an Eskom technician ("Long") came to fix it, he opened her
meter box for the first time, claimed it had been
tampered with, and
left the wiring exposed and unsafe.
[6]
The applicant denies any form of tampering with the electricity
boxes
or electricity supply. She also states that she is not aware of
any tampering that might have taken place.
[7]
The applicant argues that she is a vulnerable person, being
a
pensioner living with her daughters and her two minor grandchildren
as well as a Grade 12 student.
[8]
During the period of 7 April 2026 and after heavy rains, the
electricity went off at Ms. Mokhondo's house and that of some
neighbours'. Power returned to the neighbours, but not to her house.
[9]
On 9 April 2026 an Eskom technician named "Long"
arrived. He fixed a switch on the pole and suggested the underground
cable (approx. 30 years old) might be damaged. He then entered
the
room with the meter box, opened it for the first time, and accused
Ms. Mokhondo of tampering with it. He left the
meter
box stripped open with exposed wires and said he would
return with a fine.
[10]
Ms Mokhondo attaches photos of the electricity boxes to her founding
affidavit. The
photos depict two boxes next to each other: one a
small box in which the pre-paid token numbers are entered (the
“pre-paid”
box), and another which is larger and have
wires protruding from the box (the “DB board”).
[11]
During 10 - 15 April 2026, Ms. Mokhondo repeatedly called Eskom.
A second technician
visited the property on 13 April 2026 but did not
do any work on the two electrical boxes.
[12]
On 16 April 2026 an Eskom employee finally returned and gave Ms.
Mokhondo's
daughter a "tampering fine" of R6,052.60,
demanding payment before electricity would be restored.
[13]
On 20 April 2026 the applicant’s lawyers sent a letter of
demand to Eskom,
which received an automated response and no
substantive reply.
Urgency
[14]
The applicant argues the following as grounds for urgency:
14.1.
Ms. Mokhondo
is a pensioner over the age of 60, living with
her daughters and grand-daughters. The occupants to the
property
include minor children and a learner writing
exams. They have been without electricity for over two weeks.
14.2.
They are
left desolate in that they have no warm water, no
lights, and their perishable food has rotted.
14.3.
They cannot
afford to buy alternative food daily.
14.4.
The ordinary
court roll would take 2-4 months, causing irreparable
harm in the winter months.
14.5.
Eskom has
refused to engage in any internal dispute resolution and
holds steadfast that it will only reconnect the electricity after the
tampering fine has been paid. I will refer to the tampering
fine hereunder.
The
nature of urgency
[15]
Rule 6(12) permits a court to dispense with the ordinary Rules of
Court and to hear
a matter urgently, but only where the applicant
sets forth explicitly the circumstances which render the matter
urgent and, more
importantly, the reasons why the applicant cannot
obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course. Mere lip
service to these
requirements will not suffice. The degree of
relaxation of the Rules must be commensurate with the exigencies of
the case.
[16]
The purpose of the urgent motion court is not to bypass the ordinary
rolls for the
sake of convenience or to obtain a speedier hearing
than other litigants would receive. It exists to provide truly
exceptional
relief where a delay of even a few months would cause
irreparable harm that cannot be adequately remedied later.
The
applicant’s case on urgency
[17]
The applicant’s electricity was interrupted on 7 April 2026.
According to her,
the interruption followed heavy rains. By 16 April
2026, Eskom had issued a tampering fine of R6,052.60 and refused to
reconnect
pending payment. The applicant has attached
photographs of the electrical boxes as it was after being opened by
the electrician
from the respondent. The photographs show that
there are protruding wires, with one wire being taped to another with
a sort
of tape. According to the applicant this was the first
time that she saw the inside of the boxes, and the cables that were
taped together.
[18]
The applicant denies any tampering and says she cannot afford to pay
the fine. She
launched this urgent application on 22 April 2026,
seeking an order compelling reconnection.
[19]
In her founding affidavit, the applicant alleges the following in
support of urgency:
19.1.
That she
and other occupants (including a pensioner, two minor
children and a Grade 12 learner) have been left without electricity
for more
than two weeks.
19.2.
That perishable
food has been lost.
19.3.
That there
is no warm water or lights.
19.4.
That she
has no alternative remedy because she cannot afford to pay
the fine.
19.5.
That if the
matter proceeds on the normal roll, she will only be
heard in approximately four months, which would be untenable.
[20]
I accept that the prolonged interruption of electricity supply to a
residential home
occupied by vulnerable persons – including a
pensioner and minor children – causes genuine hardship. The
applicant
has my sympathy. However, hardship alone does not transform
a matter into one of urgency as contemplated by Rule 6(12).
[21]
The critical defect in the applicant’s case is the failure to
demonstrate why
she cannot obtain substantial redress at a hearing in
due course.
[22]
In
Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin & Another (t/a
Makin's Furniture Manufacturers
1977 (4) SA 135
(W) at 136H
the court held that:
"
Practitioners
should carefully analyse the facts of each case to determine, for the
purposes of setting the case down for hearing,
whether a greater or
lesser degree of relaxation of the Rules and of the ordinary practice
of the Court is required. The degree
of relaxation should not be
greater than the exigency of the case demands. It must be
commensurate therewith. Mere lip service
to the requirements of Rule
6 (12) (b) will not do and an applicant must make out a case in the
founding affidavit to justify the
particular extent of the departure
from the norm, which is involved in the time and day for which the
matter be set down."
and further
"
. . . there are
degrees of urgency. As a result, our courts deal with the question of
urgency according to the merits of each case.
The degree of
relaxation of the rules and of the ordinary practice or the court
depends on the degree of urgency of each matter.
On the other hand,
were a matter lacks the requisite degree of urgency, the court can,
for that reason alone, strike the application
from the roll."
[23]
In
East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd v Eagle
Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd
2011 JDR
1832 (GSJ) the following guidelines were given by Notsche AJ in
determining whether a matter should be treated as urgent:
“
[5]
The issue of whether a matter should be enrolled and heard as an
urgent application is governed by the
provisions of 6(12) of the
Uniform Rules. The aforesaid sub rule allows the court or a Judge in
urgent applications to dispense
with the forms and service provided
for in the rules and dispose of the matter at such time and place in
such manner and in accordance
with such procedure as to it seems
meet. It further provides that in the affidavit in support of an
urgent application the applicant
"… shall set forth
explicitly the circumstances which he avers render the matter urgent
and the reasons why he claims
that he could not be afforded
substantial redress at a hearing in due course."
[6]
The import thereof is that the procedure set out in rule 6(12) is not
there for taking. An applicant
has to set forth explicitly the
circumstances which he avers render the matter urgent. More
importantly, the Applicant must state
the reasons why he claims that
he cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.
The question of whether a
matter is sufficiently urgent to be
enrolled and heard as an urgent application is underpinned by the
issue of absence of substantial
redress in an application in due
course. The rules allow the court to come to the assistance of a
litigant because if the latter
were to wait for the normal course
laid down by the rules it will not obtain substantial redress.
[7]
It is important to note that the rules require absence of substantial
redress. This is not equivalent
to the irreparable harm that is
required before the granting of an interim relief. It is something
less. He may still obtain redress
in an application in due course but
it may not be substantial. Whether an applicant will not be able
obtain substantial redress
in an application in due course will be
determined by the facts of each case. An applicant must make out his
cases in that regard.”
[24]
The applicant has several potential remedies available that do
not require
urgent court intervention. She can regularise the
electricity account (which, on her own version, remains registered in
the name
of her late husband) by applying for its transfer into her
own name and concluding a supply agreement with the respondent. She
can pursue the dispute over the alleged tampering through the
internal dispute resolution mechanisms available to Eskom customers.
She can lodge a complaint with the National Energy Regulator of South
Africa (NERSA) under section 30 of the
Electricity Regulation Act
4 of 2006. She can also bring proceedings on the ordinary motion
roll, where the substantial disputes of fact that plainly exist
in
this matter (including whether tampering occurred and whether the
meter was bypassed) can properly be ventilated.
[25]
The applicant stated, and it was argued on behalf of the applicant,
that there was
no change in the amount of electricity used over the
past 6 months. I requested the parties to submit receipts and
reports
from the electricity use of the applicant’s household
as from October 2025, in order to see if there was any change in the
electricity paid for by the applicant for the period of October 2025
to March 2026. The electricity that was used by the
applicant
is summarised as follows:
25.1.
October 2025
R660
25.2.
November
2025 R800
25.3.
December
2025 R720
25.4.
January 2026
R170
25.5.
February
2026
R200
25.6.
March 2026
R150
[26]
There is a drastic reduction in the amount being paid for electricity
from January
2026. The average amount paid from October 2025 to
December 2025 is R726, whilst the average amount paid from January
2026
to March 2026 is R173. It is argued on behalf of the respondent
that it is a common occurrence with people where tampering is found,
the household proceed to pay a minimum amount to act as a ruse in an
attempt to guise tampering. Due to the finding I come
to on
urgency, it is not necessary for me to make any finding on whether I
suspect that there was tampering or not and I specifically
refrain
from making any such finding.
[27]
Whether tampering to the electricity exists or not, is a factual
dispute that cannot
be resolved on the papers before me.
[28]
The applicant contends that she cannot afford to pay the tampering
fine and that
this compels urgent relief. But the existence of a
monetary obstacle to obtaining reconnection under Eskom’s
policies does
not, without more, create urgency in the legal sense.
If that were the case, any indigent consumer who disputes a
disconnection
could bypass the ordinary Rules of Court. That is not
the law.
[29]
Moreover, the relief sought is final mandatory relief. This Court is
being asked
to compel Eskom to restore electricity supply on the
basis of an affidavit that is disputed on material facts: whether
tampering
and bypassing occurred; whether the technicians acted
properly; and whether the applicant’s version or the
respondent’s
version of events is correct. Final relief is not
ordinarily granted in urgent motion proceedings where there are
substantial disputes
of fact. The proper forum for the resolution of
such disputes is the ordinary motion court, where full answering
affidavits can
be filed and, if necessary, referral to oral evidence
can be considered.
[30]
The fact that the applicant would prefer to have the matter resolved
in days rather
than months does not make the matter urgent. The test
is not whether the applicant will suffer prejudice – some
prejudice
is inherent in any delay – but whether substantial
redress can be obtained at a hearing in due course. In my view, it
can.
The applicant is not facing an imminent threat that cannot be
undone. The electricity is already off. The harm, while serious, is
not of such a nature that it cannot be compensated for or adequately
addressed if the matter proceeds on the ordinary roll, particularly
where the applicant has other remedies available to her.
Conclusion
on urgency
[31]
The applicant has failed to make out a case for the abridgment of
time periods and
the deviation from the ordinary rules of court that
urgency requires. The application is not urgent within the meaning of
Rule
6(12).
[32]
In the circumstances, the application is struck from the urgent roll.
This does not
leave the applicant without recourse. She may re-enrol
the matter on the ordinary motion roll if she is so advised, or
pursue the
alternative remedies available to her.
Costs
[33]
The respondent seeks costs. Ordinarily, a court has a discretion as
to costs in urgent
applications that are struck for lack of urgency.
In this matter, the applicant, although unsuccessful on urgency, is a
pensioner
who genuinely believes her electricity was cut off
unlawfully and who faces real hardship.
[34]
The respondent, for its part, was obliged to oppose an application
that sought final
relief on a truncated timetable. In my view, the
appropriate order is that each party pay its own costs. There is no
basis for
a punitive costs order against either party.
Order
[35]
In the result, the following order is made:
(i) The
application is struck from the urgent roll for lack of urgency.
(ii) Each
party shall pay its own costs.
FMM
REID
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION NORTH PRETORIA
DATE OF
HEARING:
7 and 8 May
2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
13 May 2026
Appearances:
For
the applicant:
Adv PT Makhondo
(Bares & Basson
Attorneys)
For
the respondent:
Adv Ms SJ Gumbi
(instructed by
Maswanganyi Hlapolosa Inc)