Lateovista (Pty) Limited v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another

The applicant occupied commercial premises under a lease with the second respondent (the landlord). Electricity to the property was supplied by the City to the landlord, who had accrued arrears exceeding R5 million. Despite the applicant alleging that it paid its own electricity consumption to the landlord, the City terminated supply on 7 March 2025 due to non-payment. The applicant previously obtained a rule nisi in the Magistrates’ Court directing reconnection, which the City initially complied with, but later terminated supply again. The applicant approached the High Court urgently seeking restoration of electricity, relying on contempt of court, the mandament van spolie, an interdict, and procedural fairness under PAJA.

The application was enrolled as urgent but dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs.

The judgment clarifies the limits of tenants’ rights against municipalities for continued electricity supply, particularly where there is no direct contractual relationship. It reinforces that procedural fairness under PAJA is context-specific and may be satisfied through prior engagement, and it confirms that spoliation relief is unavailable where a municipality disconnects services without interfering with possession of property.