OK Zimbabwe Ltd v Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission & Distribution Company (ZETDC)

Applicant (OK Zimbabwe Ltd) operated a supermarket in Gwanda and installed a smart electricity meter in terms of SI 44A of 2013. On 15 August 2012, applicant received correspondence confirming the meter had passed testing and complied with requirements. On 20 August 2017, respondent (ZETDC) inspected the installation, found defects, and stated the meter had been installed illegally. Respondent issued a restated bill for US$72,319.16 which applicant disputed. Applicant paid US$720.00 for respondent's work on the consumer installation after tampering was discovered. Respondent issued a seven-day notice to disconnect electricity effective 7 November 2017 due to non-payment. Applicant brought an urgent chamber application seeking an interdict to prevent disconnection, arguing respondent was resorting to unlawful self-help without a court order and that disconnection would cause irreparable harm to perishable goods and business operations.

• Whether the respondent was entitled to disconnect electricity supply without a court order where the bill was allegedly disputed
• Whether applicant established a clear right or prima facie right to electricity supply
• Whether applicant would suffer irreparable harm warranting an interdict
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim relief
• Whether there was a genuine dispute between the parties regarding the outstanding bill
• Whether disconnection for non-payment constituted unlawful self-help
• Whether applicant had an alternative remedy

The application was dismissed with costs.

An electricity supplier acting under statutory authority (SI 155/88 section 4(1)(a)) is entitled to disconnect supply for non-payment without obtaining a court order where there is no genuine dispute regarding the charges. The right to electricity arises from contract and depends on the consumer fulfilling payment obligations; a consumer has no right to continue enjoying power that is not paid for. The constitutional right to water under section 77 of the Constitution does not extend to electricity, which has substitutes and is not a constitutionally protected right. For an interim interdict to be granted, an applicant must establish: (a) a clear or prima facie right; (b) well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm; (c) balance of convenience in their favour; and (d) no alternative remedy. Where charges are calculated pursuant to agreed contractual terms and the consumer has not genuinely disputed the bills, disconnection does not constitute unlawful self-help requiring prior court authorization.

The court observed that electricity has substitutes (generators, solar energy) which prudent business people can resort to in the event of non-supply, and that applicant had sufficient time (seven days) to transfer perishables or arrange alternative power sources. The court noted that applicant's argument equating electricity to water as a constitutional right was clearly incorrect because water is specifically provided for in the Constitution while electricity is not, the rationale being that there are substitutes to electricity as a form of energy. The court also observed that applicant's reliance on section 71 of the Constitution (property rights) was fallacious because electricity belongs to the respondent and applicant merely enjoys it as supplied - it is not applicant's property.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for distinguishing between constitutional rights (such as the right to water) and contractual rights (such as electricity supply). It clarifies that electricity suppliers are entitled to disconnect supply for non-payment pursuant to statutory authority without obtaining a court order, provided there is no genuine dispute regarding the charges. The case establishes that the constitutional reasoning in Mushoriwa regarding water rights does not extend to electricity. It also reinforces the principle that interim interdicts are extraordinary remedies requiring strict proof of requirements, and that where a party has not fulfilled contractual obligations (payment), they cannot claim a right to continued performance. The judgment provides guidance on when disconnection of utilities constitutes lawful exercise of statutory rights versus unlawful self-help, emphasizing the need for a genuine dispute before court intervention is required.