REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
1
Case Number : 2025-226981
(1) REPORTABLE:.is/NO
(2) O F INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ~ / NO
(3) REVISED:~/NO
uJ t?6 /2 D<=-6 ______:___:
DA1E ( SIGNATU
In the matter between:
EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
NATIONAL ENERGY REGULATO R OF SOUTH AFRICA
{NERSA)
and
MPACT LIMITED
MPACT OPERATIONS {PTY) LTD
MPACT PLASTIC CONTAINERS CASTLEVIEW
(PTY) LIMITED
RECYCLING CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD
JUDGMENT
First Applicant
Second Applican t
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Responde nt
2
MBONGWE,J:
INTRODUCTION
[1] The present First Applicant, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality ("Ekurhuleni"),
seeks leave to appeal against the judgments and orders of this Court delivered
on 18 February 2026 and varied by it on 16 March 2026. The operative order
interdicts Ekurhuleni from disconnecting the electricity supply to the premises
of the present respondents pending the final determination of the review
application under case number 2025-185401.
[2] The application is opposed by the Respondents, who contend that the order is
not appealable; that no reasonable prospects of success exist; that there are
no compelling reasons to justify the granting of leave to appeal and that the
appeal, were the impugned orders appealable and leave granted, would be
moot as a date for the hearing of the review application is only a few months
away and before any date that may be allocated for the hearing of the appeal.
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
[3] Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 provides that leave to
appeal may only be granted where the judge is of the opinion that the appeal
would have a reasonable prospect of success, or where there is some other
compelling reason, including conflicting judgments or questions of public
importance.
[4] Section 16(2)(a) further stipulates that an appeal against an interlocutory order
may only be entertained if the interests of justice so require.
3
APPEALABILITY OF INTERIM ORDERS
[5] The orders concerned herein are plainly interim in nature and do not dispose of
the substantive relief sought in the review application, nor do they finally
determine the rights of the parties. It merely preserves the status quo pending
the review.
[6] The Zweni v Minister of Law and Order1 test requires that an appealable order
be final in effect, definitive of the rights of the parties, and dispositive of a
substantial portion of the relief claimed. This order meets none of those
attributes.
[7] While subsequent jurisprudence has recognised that interim orders may be
appealable if the interests of justice so dictate,2 no such factors are present
here. Unlike in Vresthena,3 the Applicants continue to pay a tariff covering the
full cost of supply plus a reasonable return, ensuring that Ekurhuleni suffers no
prejudice.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
[8] Many of Ekurhuleni's grounds of appeal have been rendered moot by the
variation judgment of 16 March 2026, which corrected a patent error and
confined the order to the interim relief pending review.4
'1993 (1) SA 523 (A).
2
United Democratic Movement v Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd 2023 (1) SA 353 (CC) at paras 40-
48.
3
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Vresthena (Pty) Ltd 2024 (6) SA 159 (SCA).
• Rule 42(1 )(b), Uniform Rules of Court; Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG 1977 (4) SA 298
(A).
4
[9] The remaining grounds-whether section i 02 of the Municipal Systems Act
applies, whether the Afriforum judgment invalidated the tariffs, and whether the
order undermines Ekurhuleni's constitutional mandate-do not sustain
prospects of success:
a) Section 102: This Court has already declared the 2024/25 and 2025/26
tariffs invalid. The Applicants' dispute is accordingly "internal" and
squarely within section 102(2).5
b) Afriforum judgment: Under the Oudekraal principle, an unlawful
administrative act cannot be relied upon to exercise coercive powers.6
Ekurhuleni cannot disconnect supply based on tariffs declared invalid.
c) Constitutional mandate: The interim order does not compel Ekurhuleni
to supply electricity without payment. The Applicants continue to pay a
lawful tariff, distinguishing this case from Vresthena.
d) Mootness: Even if leave we~e to be granted, the appeal would be moot.
The timetable set by Acting Deputy Judge President Collis provides that
the review application will be heard in November 2026. Any appeal
against the interim order could not be finalised before that hearing, by
which time the review will have been determined, rendering the appeal
academic.7
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
[1 0] Ekurhuleni inv_okes conflicting judgments within this Division as a compelling
reason. It relies on CFMCSA I & fl (Fourie J and Barn J), which held that section
5
Body Corporate Croftdene Mal/ v eThekwini Municipality 2012 (4) SA 169 (SCA); Casting, Forging &
Machining Cluster of South Africa NPC v City of Johannesburg (2024) ZAGPPHC 1216 (Baqwa J).
6
Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town 2004 (6) SA 222 (SCA).
7
Case Management Note before Collis ADJP (25 May 2026), paras 3-4, recording the timetable
culminating in the hearing of the review application on 9-13 November 2026.
5
102 does not apply to NERSA tariff disputes, contrasted with CFMCSA Ill
(Baqwa J), which held otherwise.
111] However, the present matter is distinguishable: here, tariffs have already been
declared invalid, and the Applicants have identified specific amounts in dispute
and tendered payment of lawful tariffs. The conflict of authority does not create
a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal in circumstances where the
operative order is interim and tailored to prevent irreparable harm.
CONCLUSION
112) The impugned order is interim, not appealable, and does not implicate the
interests of justice in a manner warranting appellate intervention. The grounds
advanced by Ekurhuleni are either moot or devoid of merit.
113] Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal must fail.
ORDER
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. including the
costs of counsel.
UDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION
PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
For the Applicants:
Instructed by:
For the First Respondent:
Instructed by:
Date of Hearing:
Date of Judgment:
JC UYS SC
Klapper Jonker Incorporated
S PUDIFIN-JONES
Nortons Incorporated
26 May 2026
11 June 2026
THIS JUDGMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES'
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND UPLOADED ONTO CASELINES ON 11 JUNE
2026.
6