City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Vresthena (Pty) Ltd and Others

Vresthena (Pty) Ltd owned sections 1 to 4, 7 and 8 of the Zambezi Retail Park Sectional Title Scheme, a large commercial property in Tshwane, which it leased to business entities. The City of Tshwane supplied electricity to the Retail Park through a single supply point to the Body Corporate, which had entered into a contract with the City in October 2017. There was a history of non-payment for electricity services dating back to the previous owners. By January 2022, the Retail Park owed the City over R24 million, with no payments made since November 2017. In January 2022, the City implemented credit control measures including disconnection of electricity to collect outstanding revenue. Vresthena filed an urgent application in the high court seeking restoration of electricity and water supply, and an order compelling the City to accept and reconsider its application for a separate electricity connection for its sections. The high court granted the relief in Part A on 20 June 2022, ordering restoration of electricity within 14 days and various interim measures. The City sought leave to appeal.

• Whether the interim order granted by the high court was appealable
• Whether condonation should be granted for late filing of notice of appeal
• Whether Vresthena established a prima facie right to continue receiving electricity without payment
• Whether the high court properly considered the requirements for an interdict
• Whether the order impermissibly interfered with the City's constitutional obligation to collect revenue for services provided
• Whether owners of sectional title units had alternative remedies against the Body Corporate

1. Condonation granted and appeal reinstated. 2. Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel where applicable. 3. The high court orders set aside and replaced with: "The application is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel where applicable."

An interim order may be appealable where it is final in effect rather than merely in form, particularly where it ought never to have been granted and causes grave injustice. A party seeking an interdict to continue receiving electricity services without payment must establish a prima facie right to such relief, which cannot exist where there is deliberate and ongoing non-payment for services. Municipalities have a constitutional duty under sections 152, 153 and 156 of the Constitution, read with the Local Government Municipal Systems Act 23 of 2000, to collect debts and implement credit control measures to ensure financial sustainability and continued provision of basic services. Courts should not grant relief that impermissibly interferes with a municipality's constitutional obligation to collect revenue for services provided. Where owners in a sectional title scheme have remedies against a dysfunctional body corporate under the Sectional Titles Act, they must pursue those remedies rather than seeking court orders that bypass their payment obligations to the municipality.

The Court observed that the doctrine of finality as envisaged in TWK Agriculture Holdings cannot be blindly applied to an interim order which is final in effect and where grave injustice would result. The Court noted the disturbing pattern where commercial entities operating "blue chip companies" in a retail park failed to pay for electricity services over many years, effectively expecting the municipality to finance their business interests. The Court commented that it was not sufficient for the owners to merely allege that the Body Corporate was dysfunctional without taking steps available under the Sectional Titles Act to rectify the situation, such as appointing new and effective trustees. The Court emphasized the chilling effect of orders that compel municipalities to supply services indefinitely to non-paying users while denying them statutory powers to terminate services without court permission. The judgment affirmed that while municipalities bear important constitutional obligations to provide basic services, there is a reciprocal obligation on citizens to pay for such services, and it is important for unpaid municipal debt to be reduced by all legitimate means.

This case is significant in South African municipal law as it clarifies: (1) the appealability of interim orders that are final in effect, particularly where they ought never to have been granted; (2) the balance between residents' rights to access basic services like electricity and municipalities' constitutional and statutory obligations to collect revenue through credit control measures; (3) that the right to access electricity is not absolute and non-payment negatively impacts service provision; (4) that courts should not interfere with municipalities' constitutional mandate to implement debt collection measures; (5) that owners in sectional title schemes must utilize remedies under the Sectional Titles Act against dysfunctional bodies corporate rather than seeking to bypass payment obligations. The judgment reinforces that municipalities cannot be compelled to finance commercial operations by continuing to supply services without payment, even where bodies corporate are dysfunctional.