Power Struggle: A Legal Victory Over Unlawful Electricity Disconnection

Based on the judgment in the case of Regona Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another [1] (“Regona”), handed down on 4 August 2023, a noteworthy legal dispute involving the application of certain national legislation, municipal by-laws (and policies) in the context of the provision of electricity services by a municipality to a property owner, and the subsequent dispute resolution process, unfolded. The judgment underscores the challenges faced by property owners in managing and resolving billing disputes with their municipalities.

The property owner challenged the electricity charges levied by the City of Johannesburg (COJ), and the dispute can be traced back to 2017.[2] The property owner, questioning the accuracy of the COJ’s own electricity meter readings, installed other “fully calibrated check meters” themselves, which recorded significantly lower electricity usage compared to COJ’s readings.[3] The property owner and occupier consequently disputed the charges using the formal processes laid out by the municipality in the applicable legislation, by-laws and policies.

Despite efforts to resolve the issue, including multiple requests for CSV downloads from the COJ’s meter, and tariff adjustments, the COJ issued pre-termination notices in November 2022 and April 2023.[4] This series of administrative missteps culminated in the disconnection of electricity on 25 July 2023, despite the account being flagged and the dispute ongoing since at least 2019.[5]

The property owner contended that the COJ’s disconnection was unlawful, arguing non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Credit Control and Debt Collection By-laws[6] (“the Credit Control By-laws”).[7] Specifically, they noted the absence of a pre-termination notice and the COJ’s failure to allow a 14-day period for written representations as mandated by s 7 of the the Credit Control By-laws.[8]

In response, the COJ maintained its stance on the need for revenue collection and the disconnection of electricity services due to non-payment, asserting that there was a large outstanding amount owing by the occupier of the property.[9] However, the COJ’s position was complicated by its acknowledgment of s 102 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act,[10] which prohibits the termination of services in the event of a dispute.[11]

The High Court scrutinised the COJ’s actions against the backdrop of the Electricity By-laws[12] and the Credit Control By-laws. It was found that the COJ had not adhered to its statutory duties, particularly in failing to address the dispute raised by the property owner and occupier.[13]

Ultimately, the High Court directed the COJ to immediately restore electricity to the property and to comply with specific procedural requirements related to the dispute, including providing CSV downloads from their meter and to consider tariff changes.[14]

The judgment highlights the importance of due process and fair administrative action in the provision of municipal services, and further underscores the statutory obligations of municipalities to engage constructively with disputes from consumers, and to at least follow their own by-laws.

Sectional Title Solutions

[1] (2023-074510) [2023] ZAGPJHC 877 (4 August 2023), accessible at https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2023/877.html .

[2] Regona para 8.

[3] Regona para 8.

[4] Regona para 11.

[5] Regona paras 15 and 16.

[6] 2004.

[7] Regona para 16.

[8] Regona para 16.

[9] Regona para 20.

[10] Act 32 of 2000.

[11] Regona para 20.

[12] 1999.

[13] Regona paras 25 and 54.

[14] Regona para 60.