Mafilika and Others v Elundini Local Municipality and Another

The six appellants were tenants occupying a property (Erf 3488, Maclear, Eastern Cape) leased from Ms Pinky Madikane. The municipality (first respondent) supplied electricity to the property under a contractual agreement with the title owner, Ms Nosipho Flora Nyezi. On 4 February 2023, Ms Nyezi wrote to the municipality requesting temporary disconnection of electricity. On 7 February 2023, the municipality disconnected the electricity supply, and on 8 February 2023, the water supply was also terminated. Both terminations occurred without any prior notice to the appellants. The appellants launched an urgent application in the High Court seeking restoration of services and declaring the termination unlawful for lack of procedural fairness under PAJA. The municipality opposed the application, arguing the disconnection was purely contractual (at the owner's request) and not administrative action. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no prima facie right and that the disconnection was not administrative action. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

• Whether the municipality's termination of electricity supply to a property, at the request of the title owner but without notice to the tenants, constitutes administrative action under PAJA
• Whether tenants have a prima facie right to receive notice and be heard before their electricity supply is terminated, despite lacking a direct contractual relationship with the municipality
• Whether the district municipality should have been joined as a party regarding the water supply claim
• Whether the requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied

The appeal was upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with an order directing the respondents to restore the electricity supply within 24 hours after service of the court order, pending the final determination of Part B of the application (which sought declarations of unlawfulness).

The termination of electricity supply by a municipality constitutes administrative action under section 3(1) of PAJA when it materially and adversely affects the rights of occupiers/tenants, even where the termination is requested by the property owner with whom the municipality has a contractual relationship. Municipalities are constitutionally and statutorily obliged to provide procedural fairness, including adequate pre-termination notice and an opportunity to be heard, to all persons actually receiving electricity services before disconnecting the supply, regardless of whether those persons are the contractual consumers or merely occupiers. The constitutional rights to dignity and access to basic services create a legal relationship that obliges municipalities to afford procedural fairness to end users of services, independent of contractual privity. A prima facie right to procedural fairness exists for tenants/occupiers before electricity disconnection, sufficient to ground interim interdictory relief pending final determination of lawfulness.

The Court expressly noted (at paragraph 26) that this judgment only dealt with procedural unfairness in terminating electricity supply without proper notice. It did not address whether appellants would be entitled to continued supply of electricity if termination occurred after due and proper notice was delivered. The Court stated: "That is a different enquiry altogether." This indicates that procedural compliance does not necessarily guarantee substantive entitlement to ongoing service provision, which would depend on other factors such as payment obligations, legal occupancy status, and the respective rights and obligations between landlord, tenant, and municipality.

This case reinforces and applies the Constitutional Court's precedent in Joseph v City of Johannesburg regarding municipal service provision and procedural fairness. It clarifies that municipalities cannot circumvent their constitutional and statutory obligations to provide procedural fairness to service users by relying on contractual relationships with property owners. The judgment emphasizes that electricity is a basic constitutional service, and that occupiers/tenants have enforceable rights to adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before disconnection, even without direct contractual privity with the municipality. The case highlights the intersection of administrative law (PAJA), constitutional rights (dignity, access to basic services), and municipal service delivery obligations. It provides important protection for vulnerable tenants who might otherwise be deprived of essential services without warning due to disputes between landlords and municipalities.