Tinofara Kudakwashe Hove v City of Harare

The applicant owned property at No. 7 Atkinson Road, Hillside, Harare, which he used for his legal practice, T.K. Hove Law Chambers, with over 10 employees. In November 2014, the respondent sent the applicant a water bill of US$18,876.00, later increasing to US$19,663.93. The applicant claimed he requested a breakdown of charges via letters (which he failed to attach as evidence). The respondent threatened to disconnect water supplies for non-payment. The applicant disputed the bill and also contested being charged commercial rates instead of domestic rates, alleging his premises were designated commercial without his knowledge or consent from February 2009. The applicant sought an interdict to prevent disconnection without a court order, claiming this would violate his constitutional right to water under section 77(a) of the Constitution. The applicant failed to provide proof of his complaint letters or evidence of any payments made toward the water bill.

• Whether the respondent could disconnect water supplies without a court order where the water bill was disputed
• Whether disconnection of water without a court order violates the constitutional right to safe, clean and potable water under section 77(a) of the Constitution
• Whether the applicant established the requirements for a final interdict
• Whether the applicant's premises were properly zoned and rated as commercial premises
• Whether the Water By-Laws allowing disconnection without court order are constitutional
• What constitutes a 'genuine dispute' of a water bill

The application was dismissed with costs. The applicant was granted liberty to approach the Valuation Board or Administrative Court regarding the zoning and rating issue.

Where water charges are genuinely disputed, a municipal authority cannot arbitrarily disconnect water supplies without recourse to the courts, as this would violate the constitutional right of access to courts (section 69(3)) and constitute arbitrary interference with the constitutional right to water (section 77(a)). However, a 'genuine dispute' requires proof and evidence—not mere assertions. The genuineness of a complaint is determined by proof or evidence availed by the consumer showing that a complaint has been made and the reasons for it. The constitutional right to water does not prohibit disconnections for non-payment but requires that disconnections be performed in a manner warranted by law and compatible with the Constitution. A party seeking a final interdict must establish: (a) a clear right; (b) well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm; (c) balance of convenience; and (d) absence of other satisfactory remedy. An applicant cannot approbate and reprobate by enjoying commercial benefits while demanding domestic rates.

The court observed that the right to water is necessary for enjoyment of other human rights such as life, dignity, health and food, with individuals requiring a minimum of 20-50 litres of safe water daily for basic needs. The State's obligations to respect, protect, promote and fulfill the right to water mean it must refrain from interfering with existing enjoyment, prevent third party interference, and ensure conditions for all to enjoy the right. The court noted that while section 276 of the Constitution empowers local authorities to levy rates and taxes for service provision, costs for providing safe water must be recovered. The court commented that it would be impractical to require council to litigate every disputed bill, as this would result in rate payers using disputes as a stratagem to avoid payment. The court expressed concern about the applicant's dishonesty in claiming to have attached documents when he had not, suggesting this was done to buy time. The court noted that zoning and rating are essentially town planning issues within the domain of municipal authorities, not requiring property owner consent but requiring proper publication and objection procedures.

This judgment clarifies the balance between constitutional rights to water and municipal powers to disconnect services for non-payment under Zimbabwean law. It establishes that while arbitrary disconnection on disputed bills violates constitutional rights, not every dispute warrants court intervention—the dispute must be 'genuine' and supported by evidence. The case demonstrates the importance of procedural fairness and proper evidence in applications for interdicts. It reinforces that constitutional rights carry reciprocal obligations and that applicants cannot benefit from commercial activities while avoiding commercial obligations. The judgment also delineates jurisdictional boundaries between the High Court and specialized tribunals like the Valuation Board for town planning matters.