In the matter between:
SENWES LIMITED
l,r · - ,\ /J,.,.....'!_~ \ ,'!
~;1_·1[1-=-.."' ;_ i.t_·-~ rr-~ . • •• - 1 ,-~:r
~~\~ Xll 'i r\JJJ.d!I
~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
(REG NO: 1997/005336/06)
and
MASILONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
MUNICIPAL MANAGER:
Not reportable
Case no: 2025-187233
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
MASILONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY SECOND RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Senwes Ltd v Masilonyana Local Municipality and Another (2025-
187233) [2026] ZAFSHC 293.
Coram: PARKS AJ
Heard : 12 February 2026
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives by email and released to SAFLII. The date and time for the hand
down is deemed to be 1 0h00 on 15 May 2026.
Summary: Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 - disconnection of
electricity supply- municipality relying on invoices issued by third-party service provider after
earlier appointment had been set aside and despite undertaking to bill directly - whether
municipality entitled to implement credit-control measures pending dispute.
2
ORDER
1 The rule nisi granted on 13 October 2025 is confirmed.
2 The respondents are ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs of this application
on Scale C, the one paying the other to be absolved.
JUDGMENT
Parks AJ
[1] On· 13 October 2025, a rule nisi was granted on an urgent basis directing the
respondents to restore the electricity supply to Erf 779, also known as the Grain Silo,
Theunissen, and Erf 872, also known as the Grain Silo, Brandfort. The return date of the
rule nisi was initially set for 27 November 2025 and was subsequently extended to 12
February 2026.
[2] The applicant averred in the founding affidavit that there has been a longst~nding
dispute between the parties concerning the amounts claimed by the respondent for the
alleged consumption of municipal services in respect of the Theunissen property. As a
result, a formal dispute was lodged with the first respondent on 15 June 2022 regarding
the disputed charges, which remains unresolved.
[3] The dispute lodged pertains to two municipal accounts, namely account numbers
080779007 and 080692007. In respect of account 080779007, the statement reflects an
amount of R720 257.88 allegedly due for electricity, despite the statement itself recording
zero electricity consumption. Account 080692007 reflects an amount of R222 371.23 for
electricity, water, rates, taxes, and various levies, yet it relates to a property that no longer
exists.
[4] The applicant further avers that, in terms of s 95 of the Local Government: Municipal
Systems Act 32 of 2000 (Systems Act), the respondent must provide accurate and
3
comprehensible municipal accounts and accessible mechanisms to resolve billing queries.
The applicant contends that the accounts rendered are inaccurate because they show no
electricity consumption despite allegations of arrears. It is further submitted that the
respondent relies on statements from a third party, Ideal Metering Services,
notwithstanding a written undertaking by the respondent dated 24 October 2023 to assume
responsibility for billing from that date.
[5] On 8 October 2025, while none of the disputes had been resolved, the respondent
proceeded to disconnect the water and electricity supplies to the properties,
notwithstanding that the applicant had made payment on 25 September 2025. The
applicant contends that, in terms of s 102(2) of the Systems Act, the respondent is
precluded from implementing debt-collection measures in circumstances where a dispute
has been formally lodged in respect of the specific amounts claimed. In addition, the
applicant avers that the disconnection in respect of the Brandfort property was effected
without reasonable prior written notice and was therefore unlawful. Although a short notice
was received regarding the disconnection at the Theunissen property, the applicant
maintains that such notice was inadequate in the circumstances and the disconnection,
therefore, also unlawful.
[6] The applicant further avers that the properties are used to operate grain storage silos
in which grain delivered by, and/or owned by, various farmers, grain traders, millers, the
applicant itself, and other agricultural entities is stored for later use, particularly for food
production. The silos require an uninterrupted electricity supply to operate the extraction
fans that aerate the stored grain. This process is essential for removing excess moisture
and regulating the grain's temperature. In the absence of such aeration, the grain would
deteriorate to such an extent that it would no longer be suitable for either human or animal
deteriorate to such an extent that it would no longer be suitable for either human or animal
consumption. Substantial amounts of electricity are required to perform these functions
effectively.
[7] The disconnection of the electricity supply, whether effected on very short notice or
without any prior notice at all, would result in the applicant suffering losses amounting to
millions of rands. In the absence of an uninterrupted electricity supply, the grain stored in
the silos cannot be properly aerated, leading to deterioration and rendering it unsuitable
for use. The resultant financial prejudice would be substantial and irreparable to the
applicant.
4
[8] In its answering affidavit, the respondent avers that the dispute lodged in June 2022
pertained to the Theunissen property and an invoice issued in August 2021, in terms of
which the applicant was charged an amount of R720 257.86 for electricity consumption,
together with an additional charge of R92 710.88. The respondent acknowledges that the
electricity consumption was incorrectly billed and concedes that the correct charge ought
to have reflected an average monthly amount of R145 737.41. Consequently, the incorrect
charges were reversed, and the applicant's account was duly credited. The respondent
accordingly contends that the termination of the electricity supply was not effected on the
basis of the disputed amounts, as the dispute had already been resolved.
[9] The respondent further asserts that the real dispute does not concern the quantum
of the outstanding amounts per se, but rather the applicant's refusal to make payment in
respect of invoices issued by Ideal Metering Services. In this regard, the respondent states
that it outsourced certain debt-collection functions in September 2021 to Mafumu
Consulting, which subsequently entered into an agreement with Ideal Metering Services to
undertake the billing of electricity consumption on the respondent's behalf. The respondent
maintains that Ideal Metering Services has rendered accurate and regular invoices and
statements to the applicant, which the applicant is contractually and legally obligated to
pay.
[1 O] The respondent further avers that, as of October 2025, the applicant remained
indebted in respect of both properties, which indebtedness resulted in the termination of
the electricity supply to the Theunissen and Brandfort properties. The respondent
emphasizes that the outstanding amounts do not relate to rates and taxes, but solely to
electricity consumption. It is contended that the only electricity-related amount reflected on
the municipal account pertains to infrastructure or the basic business charge applicable to
the municipal account pertains to infrastructure or the basic business charge applicable to
all businesses, and not to consumption. The respondent avers that there is no outstanding
or unresolved dispute pertaining to the relevant electricity invoices or charges associated
with the disconnection.
[11] The respondent further avers that the municipality is currently experiencing severe
financial distress and that, notwithstanding this precarious position, the applicant
effectively expects the municipality to subsidize its business operations by providing
electricity without compensation. The respondent contends that such a situation is
5
untenable and unsustainable, and that the granting of the relief sought would cause severe
prejudice to the respondent.
[12] In conclusion, the respondent avers that the applicant complains of the prejudice it
would allegedly suffer, whereas in fact, the applicant has occasioned the respondent
substantial financial loss by failing to settle its own accounts. The respondent contends
that the applicant has an adequate alternative remedy available to it, namely, to pay the
outstanding electricity charges to resolve the matter. Alternatively, the applicant may lodge
a formal dispute and, pending its adjudication, make payment of an average monthly
amount in accordance with the applicable credit control policy.
[13] The applicant, in its replying affidavit, stated that the respondent failed to disclose to
the Court that the appointment of Mafumu Consulting was reviewed, declared unlawful,
and set aside by a court order in March 2023. The applicant contends that, as a
consequence, Mafumu Consulting could not have validly concluded an agreement with
Ideal Metering Services, nor could Ideal Metering Services have been lawfully appointed
to render the relevant billing services. On this basis, the applicant challenges the
lawfulness of the invoices issued by Ideal Metering Services, contending that it cannot be
compelled to make payment for invoices that are invalid.
[14] It was further submitted that the respondent seeks to compel payment for electricity
consumption without having issued proper invoices. Although the respondent contends
that the dispute was resolved after notifying the applicant in October 2025 of a calculation
error, the applicant maintains that the dispute remains unresolved, particularly given the
inconsistencies in the amounts reflected in the respondent's correspondence, which was
issued only after the rule nisi had been granted.
[15] In closing, the applicant's counsel argued that the applicant denies being indebted to
[15] In closing, the applicant's counsel argued that the applicant denies being indebted to
the respondent and maintains that the termination of its electricity supply was unlawful.
Reliance was placed on Ditsobotla Local Municipality v /GA Dada Properties, 1 with further
reference to Rademan v Moqhaka Local Municipality and Others, 2 in support of the
proposition that a municipality's obligation to collect monies due is subject to the provisions
1 Ditsobotla Local Municipality v /GA Dada Properties [2018] ZANWHC 15 (7 June 2018).
2 Rademan V Moqhaka Local Municipality and Others [2013] ZACC 11; 2013 (4) SA 225 CC.
6
of the Systems Act and 'any other applicable legislation'.
[16] Counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant is substantially indebted in
respect of electricity charges. It was argued that the respondent acted lawfully and within
its statutory powers in terminating the electricity supply, and that the applicant failed to
meet the requirements for a final interdict. In support of the alleged indebtedness,
reference was made to outstanding amounts exceeding R3 million in respect of the
Theunissen property and over R900 000 in respect of the Brandfort property, as at October
2025, based on invoices issued by Ideal Metering Solutions. It was further contended that
the applicant did not meaningfully dispute these amounts in its replying affidavit, and that
no genuine dispute exists to preclude the implementation of credit-control measures.
[17] Counsel for the respondent relied on the Municipality's Credit Control and Debt
Collection Policy, submitting that the lodging of an inquiry or dispute does not suspend a
consumer's obligation to make payment. At the very least, an interim payment calculated
on an average basis is required pending the resolution of any dispute. It was argued that
the applicant failed to make any such payment or to take proactive steps to resolve the
alleged billing issues. Counsel further submitted that even the non-receipt of an invoice
does not absolve a consumer from its obligation to pay for services rendered. In terms of
s 19 of the Credit Control and Debt Collection Policy, it was contended that the respondent
was accordingly entitled to terminate the supply of electricity.
[18] It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the appointment of
third-party service providers does not render the invoices issued unlawful. The services
were rendered on behalf of the respondent, and that payment is therefore due for such
services. The lawfulness of the underlying service contracts, it was contended, constitutes
services. The lawfulness of the underlying service contracts, it was contended, constitutes
a separate issue that is not relevant to the determination of the present application.
[19] The respondent placed considerable reliance on authorities such as Rademan v
Moqhaka Local Municipality and Others, 3 in which the obligation of consumers to pay for
municipal services was emphasized. This principle was subsequently confirmed by the
Constitutional Court, which reiterated a municipality's entitlement to terminate services in
cases of non-payment. The respondent further reiied on this authority to highlight its
compromised financial position, contending that it continues to render services despite
3 Rademan v Moqhaka Local Municipality and Others [2011] ZASCA 244; 2012 (2) SA 387 (SCA).
7
being owed substantial amounts, amounting to millions of rands.
[20] It is common cause that the applicant lodged a complaint in respect of the accounts
relating to the Theunissen property. The parties, however, are in dispute as to whether that
complaint has been resolved. The respondent avers in its answering affidavit that, as at
October 2025, the dispute was resolved following the identification of incorrect
calculations. The applicant does not accept this contention, maintaining that the
respondent has referred to differing amounts and that the alleged resolution pertains to an
account that no longer exists.
[21] It is common cause that the respondent disconnected the electricity supply to the
applicant's properties, which resulted in the applicant successfully approaching the Court
on an urgent basis for the restoration of the electricity supply. It is further not disputed that
the respondent failed to provide the applicant with any notice prior to the disconnection of
electricity to the Brandfort property. In respect of the Theunissen property, the applicant
avers that it received only very short notice, whereas the respondent maintains that
reasonable notice was given. Notwithstanding these contentions, neither counsel was able
to provide the court with clarity as to the precise period of notice that was afforded.
[22] It is common cause that the appointment of the third-party service provider was
reviewed and set aside in March 2023. Thereafter, in October 2023, the respondent issued
correspondence indicating that the applicant's account would henceforth be billed and
administered directly by the respondent, and that all payments were to be made to the
respondent. Notwithstanding this directive, the respondent now seeks to rely on
statements issued by a third-party service provider to substantiate its allegation of
indebtedness. These statements, comprising some 240 pages up to and including
indebtedness. These statements, comprising some 240 pages up to and including
September 2025 and containing the banking details of the third party, were attached to the
answering affidavit. This gives rise to concern both as to the respondent's own directive
regarding the issuing of invoices and the destination of payments, and as to whether
reliance can lawfully be placed on third-party invoices issued contrary to that directive. The
issuing of invoices inconsistent with an express directive is, at the very least, liable to cause
confusion.
[23] Section 102 of the Systems Act empowers a municipality to implement debt-collection
8
and credit-control measures in respect of amounts due. However, subsection (2) expressly
provides that such measures may not be implemented where there is a dispute between
the municipality and a person concerning a specific amount claimed. I am accordingly
persuaded that, by virtue of s 102(2) of the Systems Act, the respondent was precluded
from implementing debt-collection or credit-control measures while a dispute existed
between the parties concerning the amounts claimed.
[24] I am unable to agree with the respondent's assertion that they acted lawfully in
terminating the electricity services to the applicant, or that they were entitled to do so in
terms of s 19(3) of the Credit Control and Debt Collection Policy. It appears that the
respondent has overlooked s 19(2) of the same policy, which expressly permits the
termination of electricity and water services only upon the provision of a minimum of 14
calendar days' written notice to the consumer. This requirement was not complied with in
respect of either the Brandfort property or the Theunissen property, as a shorter notice
period was given.
[25] Accordingly, I find that, even in terms of the respondent's own policy, the
disconnection of the electricity supply to both properties was unlawful. The requirement to
give adequate notice to affected parties was reaffirmed in Joseph and Others v City of
Johannesburg and Others,4 where a 14-day pre-termination notice was also emphasized.
[26] If the respondent's counsel maintains that the steps taken were justified in light of the
respondent's financial constraints, I find it difficult to understand why it took more than three
years to address the applicant's dispute. It is further concerning that the matter was only
attended to after the urgent application had been instituted and an interim order granted,
despite the applicant's contention that the dispute had, in any event, not been resolved. If
the respondent is indeed experiencing financial difficulty, it is perplexing why no earlier
the respondent is indeed experiencing financial difficulty, it is perplexing why no earlier
effort was made to recover a debt now exceeding R3.5 million.
[27] The applicant has, from the outset, disputed the respondent's allegation of
indebtedness and has asserted that the interruption of the electricity supply constituted an
unlawful infringement of its right to continued access to electricity services, particularly in
circumstances where payment for such services had been made, as evidenced by the
attached statements. Furthermore, the applicant contends that no adequate alternative
4 Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others [2009) ZACC 30; 2010 (3) BCLR 212 (CC).
9
remedy is available, given that the respondent is the sole supplier of electricity within the
relevant municipal area. It is also submitted that alternative power generation would be
insufficient to meet the full operational requirements of the silos without a municipal
electricity supply.
[28] I am, therefore, of the view that it was never the applicant's contention that the relief
sought was in the nature of a final interdict, but rather that it should operate on an interim
basis pending the final determination of the application. Counsel for the respondent,
however, advanced a different argument, submitting that the relief sought is, in effect, a
final interdict and that if granted, it would unduly constrain the respondent in its ability to
recover the substantial debt allegedly owed. It was further contended that it would be
improper for this Court to grant such relief in the circumstances. 1 am unable to agree with
the submission. The applicant initially approached this Court on an urgent basis seeking
the reconnection of the electricity supply, and the c-onfirmation of the rule n;s; does not
preclude the respondent from pursuing appropriate avenues to recover any amounts
lawfully owing to it. The interim relief sought does not extinguish or finally determine the
respondents' rights, but merely preserves the status quo pending the final resolution of the
dispute between the parties.
Order
[29] I accordingly make the following order:
1 The rule nisi granted on 13 October 2025 is confirmed.
2 The respondents are ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs of this application
on Scale C, the one paying the other to be absolved.
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
For the applicants:
Instructed by:
For the first to second respondents:
Instructed by:
MC Lauw
Meyer Van Sittert and Kropman Attorneys,
Klerksdorp
c/o Symington De Kok
Bloemfontein
N Deeplal
De Swardt Myambo Hlahla Attorneys,
Pretoria
c/o Webbers Attorneys,
Bloemfontein .
10