Lateovista (Pty) Limited v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

The applicant occupied property pursuant to a lease agreement with the second respondent. The City (first respondent) terminated the supply of electricity to the property on 7 March 2025, as the second respondent (the landlord) owed the City in excess of R5 million for electricity as at 2 February 2025. The applicant alleged it had been paying the second respondent for its own electricity consumption, but the second respondent failed to pay the City. Previously, a similar application before Manoim J was dismissed on 27 February 2023 on the basis of an illegal connection. Subsequently, the applicant obtained an ex parte order from the Germiston Magistrate's Court on 8 February 2024, directing the City to reconnect electricity and to show cause why it should not remain connected. The City reconnected supply on 4 March 2024, but the rule nisi was extended to 12 March 2025. When electricity was terminated again on 7 March 2025, the Magistrate indicated the contempt issue should go to the appropriate forum, prompting this urgent application.

• Whether the application was sufficiently urgent to warrant enrolment in the urgent court
• Whether the City was in contempt of the Magistrate's Court order of 8 February 2024
• Whether the mandament van spolie was available to protect the applicant's right to electricity supply
• Whether the applicant was entitled to an interdict compelling restoration of electricity
• Whether the applicant was entitled to procedural fairness under PAJA before the City terminated electricity supply

The application was enrolled as urgent but was dismissed with costs against the applicant in favor of the first respondent.

A rule nisi does not have interim operation unless the order explicitly provides for such operation. The mandament van spolie does not protect a tenant's right to electricity supply where the municipality has no interest in the tenant's occupation and is acting solely in response to non-payment by the account holder. Procedural fairness under PAJA in the context of electricity termination requires meaningful engagement with affected parties, not merely formal advance notice; where such engagement has already occurred through prior correspondence and discussions, further notice would constitute empty formalism and is not required. A tenant who chooses a landlord assumes the commercial risk that the landlord may fail to pay for services, and the tenant's remedies lie in contract against the landlord, not against the municipal service provider with whom the tenant has no contractual relationship.

The court observed that the City has a constitutional obligation to supply electricity to everyone within its area of responsibility, but did not choose the second respondent as its customer - that was the applicant's choice. The court also noted that whether the lease agreement between the applicant and second respondent remained extant was disputed but not necessary to decide, as no relief was sought against the second respondent. The court acknowledged the applicant's precarious position of being dependent on the second respondent's payment to the City, but emphasized this was a risk inherent in the applicant's selection of landlord.

This case clarifies the limits of the mandament van spolie in electricity supply disputes and refines the application of Joseph v City of Johannesburg regarding procedural fairness under PAJA. It establishes that procedural fairness is not merely a formalistic requirement of advance notice, but requires meaningful engagement - which may already have occurred through prior interactions. The judgment also reinforces that municipal electricity suppliers are not required to continue supply where the account holder (landlord) fails to pay, even where this affects a tenant, and that the tenant's remedies lie primarily against the landlord rather than the municipality. It demonstrates that risk allocation in commercial leasing relationships will be respected by courts, particularly where the tenant had opportunity to protect itself contractually or to arrange direct supply.