Lindiwe Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others

The applicants were five poor residents of Phiri, Soweto, living in households with varying numbers of occupants (ranging from 3 to 20 people per stand). The City of Johannesburg (the City) and Johannesburg Water implemented Operation Gcin'amanzi in Phiri from 2004-2005, replacing the unsustainable apartheid-era "deemed consumption" flat-rate water charging system. The old system charged R68.40 per month for a deemed 20 kilolitres of water, though actual consumption averaged 67 kilolitres, with 75% of water unaccounted for due to leaks and non-payment. The new system offered residents a choice between Service Level 2 (yard standpipe with restricted 6 kilolitres monthly flow) or Service Level 3 (pre-paid water meters). All accountholders received 6 kilolitres of free water monthly, with additional water purchased at subsidised rates. Indigent households (income below R1,881) could register for an additional 4 free kilolitres monthly and debt write-off, subject to accepting pre-paid meters. The applicants challenged: (1) the City's Free Basic Water policy of 6 kilolitres per household per month as insufficient and unreasonable under section 27 of the Constitution; and (2) the lawfulness of installing pre-paid water meters.

• What is the proper interpretation of section 27(1)(b) and 27(2) of the Constitution regarding the right of access to sufficient water?
• Should courts quantify the minimum core content of social and economic rights?
• What is the relationship between the constitutional right to sufficient water and regulation 3(b) of the National Water Standards Regulations prescribing 6 kilolitres per household per month?
• Is the City's Free Basic Water policy of 6 kilolitres per household per month reasonable under section 27(2) of the Constitution?
• Is the City's indigent registration policy reasonable and constitutional?
• Was there legal authority for the installation of pre-paid water meters?
• Do pre-paid meters result in unauthorised discontinuation of water supply contrary to section 4(3) of the Water Services Act?
• Was the manner of introducing pre-paid meters procedurally fair and lawful?
• Does the introduction of pre-paid meters violate the negative obligation to respect the right of access to water?
• Is the pre-paid meter system discriminatory on grounds of race or poverty?

The applicants' appeal was dismissed. The first, second and third respondents' cross-appeals were upheld. The orders of the Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Court were set aside. No order as to costs was made.

The ratio decidendi comprises several binding principles: (1) Section 27(1)(b) and 27(2) must be read together as defining the scope of positive state obligations regarding the right of access to sufficient water. The right does not confer an immediately enforceable entitlement to a specific quantity of water, but requires the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures to progressively realise the right within available resources. (2) Courts should not quantify the minimum core content of socio-economic rights or determine what specific measures government must take to fulfil them, as this is primarily the domain of the legislature and executive, subject to judicial review for reasonableness. (3) When reviewing government policies for compliance with socio-economic rights, courts must assess whether: (a) government took steps to realise the rights; (b) the measures adopted are reasonable; (c) the policy makes provision for those most desperately in need; (d) the policy is subject to ongoing review consistent with progressive realisation; and (e) unreasonable limitations or exclusions are removed. (4) A government policy based on a prescribed national minimum standard (such as regulation 3(b)) will generally be reasonable unless the standard itself is successfully challenged as unconstitutional. (5) The obligation of progressive realisation requires government continually to review and refine policies to ensure achievement of rights over time. (6) Municipal council decisions taken in pursuance of legislative and executive functions are not administrative action under PAJA. (7) Pre-paid service delivery systems that temporarily suspend supply until payment are not "discontinuation" of services requiring procedural protections under section 4(3) of the Water Services Act, which applies to permanent discontinuation. (8) Differential treatment of communities to address legitimate policy objectives (such as acute service delivery problems) is not unfairly discriminatory where rationally connected to those objectives and not actually disadvantageous to affected groups.

Several significant obiter observations include: (1) O'Regan J suggested (without deciding) that even where national government sets a minimum standard, other spheres of government sharing constitutional obligations may still be subject to reasonableness review, though it would be difficult to establish unreasonableness where the minimum is being achieved (paras 74-77). (2) The Court observed that socio-economic rights litigation serves important democratic functions by requiring government accountability, transparency about policy formulation, and disclosure of research and alternatives considered. This "fosters a form of participative democracy that holds government accountable" between elections (paras 160-165). (3) O'Regan J commented favorably on government's responsive revision of policies during litigation, noting this was beneficial rather than problematic and consistent with progressive realisation obligations (paras 96, 163). (4) The Court noted that non-governmental organisations with expertise in constitutional litigation play a vital role in pursuing socio-economic rights claims on behalf of poor communities, and that costs principles in constitutional matters facilitate such litigation (para 165). (5) The judgment observed that water is culturally significant across societies and that achieving equality requires addressing historical inequalities in water access, noting that "the achievement of equality, one of the founding values of our Constitution, will not be accomplished while water is abundantly available to the wealthy, but not to the poor" (para 2). (6) The Court recognized that correcting deep apartheid-era inequality will often require differential treatment, and courts must be cautious not to find legitimate remedial government action constitutes unfair discrimination (paras 151, 156).

This landmark judgment is the first comprehensive interpretation by the Constitutional Court of section 27(1)(b) (the right of access to sufficient water) and establishes fundamental principles for socio-economic rights litigation in South Africa. The Court: (1) Confirmed that socio-economic rights do not create immediately enforceable entitlements to specific quantum of services, but impose obligations on the state to take reasonable measures for progressive realisation within available resources. (2) Rejected the "minimum core" approach to socio-economic rights, reaffirming Grootboom and Treatment Action Campaign No 2, on grounds of both textual interpretation and institutional competence. (3) Established that courts should focus on the reasonableness of government policies rather than prescribing specific content of rights. (4) Clarified that "progressive realisation" requires ongoing review and refinement of policies, not static compliance. (5) Recognised litigation as a mechanism for democratic accountability, requiring government to explain and justify its policy choices with supporting evidence. (6) Established that means-tested benefit systems (like indigent registration) are constitutionally permissible despite under-inclusivity concerns. (7) Clarified the scope of municipal executive powers versus administrative action under PAJA. (8) Addressed complex issues of indirect discrimination and legitimate differential treatment in addressing apartheid's legacy. The judgment has been influential in subsequent socio-economic rights cases and debates about the appropriate judicial role in enforcing these rights. It demonstrates judicial restraint while maintaining meaningful review, balancing separation of powers concerns with constitutional accountability.