The city wins court battle against Kyalami resident
City of Johannesburg celebrates court victory against Kyalami Estate resident over unpaid municipal services.
On September 4, acting Judge J Beyers of the Johannesburg High Court dismissed a case brought to court by a Kyalami Estates resident over her water being disconnected by the city.
Kgamanyane Maphologela, the city’s director of communications, explained that the resident had not paid her water bill for almost two years. “The resident had argued that her constitutional right to access sufficient water was violated after the city and Johannesburg Water disconnected her water supply and removed the water meter due to her ongoing failure to pay.”
Read more: Court orders CoJ to address Kya Sands’ toxic air
Seeking immediate restoration of her services, the resident insisted that the court declare the disconnection and meter removal ‘wrongful and unlawful,’ demanding a new water meter be installed within 24 hours.
Despite acknowledging her debt to the city, the resident disputed the total amount owed. However, the city and Johannesburg Water countered her claims, describing the resident as a ‘chronic defaulter’ and asserting that the last payment recorded was made on October 21, 2022.
The city revealed that as of July 11, 2024, her outstanding balance had reached a staggering R200 328.33. They maintained that the resident failed to demonstrate urgency in her court application, having ignored several pre-termination notices issued by the municipality.
In delivering the judgment, Beyers stated, “The City of Johannesburg and Johannesburg Water has given the resident several pre-termination notices, including, at least, notices on August 8 and November 8, 2023.
Also read: Bodyguards to appear in court today for N1 assault
“These are all dated more than a period of 14 days before the alleged discontinuation date of 2 July 2024. The respondents were within their rights to enforce the legislatively sanctioned credit control measures.”
Tebogo Moraka, the city’s group chief financial officer, expressed satisfaction with the judgment but also voiced concern over a growing tendency among property owners to seek legal recourse to evade payment for municipal services.
“We are pleased that the courts are starting to agree with us that property owners cannot run away from their responsibilities of paying what is due to the city as far as municipal services are concerned. We hope this sends a clearer message that a dispute with the city does not justify withholding payments.”
Customers are urged to refrain from misusing Section 102 of the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000, which requires specific disputes to be raised rather than general queries aimed at delaying payments.
Beyers reiterated this by highlighting that the resident’s challenges were not based on specific amounts, but rather presented in vague terms.
“The city remains committed to reducing its debts through the efficient collection of outstanding payments, emphasising that these efforts are essential for maintaining service infrastructure,” concluded Moraka.
Residents are encouraged to stay current with their municipal accounts to ensure continued improvements in service delivery.
Follow us on our Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok pages. Join our WhatsApp group for any story ideas you may have.
Related article: Randburg court gives Diepsloot gang rapist life imprisonment
