Afriform NPC and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (99984/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 199; [2017] 3 All SA 663 (GP) (24 May 2017)

Afriform NPC and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (99984/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 199; [2017] 3 All SA 663 (GP) (24 May 2017)

The court held that Eskom's decisions to interrupt bulk electricity supply to municipalities were rendered moot by subsequent settlement agreements and undertakings not to implement the interruptions. The applications for declaratory, interdictory, and review relief regarding the withdrawn decisions were dismissed as moot, with no exceptional circumstances warranting adjudication. The court found that section 21(5) of the Electricity Regulation Act does not require prior judicial authorisation for Eskom to interrupt supply to municipalities, and that reading down or reading in such a requirement is not linguistically or constitutionally justified. The interruption of supply is not...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 199
Parties
Applicant: Afriforum NPC & Others; Applicant: Astral Operations Limited & Another; Applicant: Bridgestone SA (Proprietary) Limited & Others; Applicant: Mediclinic Brits (Proprietary) Limited & Others; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited & Others
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Case Number
99984/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Consolidated Hearing of Multiple Related Applications
Outcome
Applications dismissed as moot; no order as to costs.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Electricity Regulation Act, Municipal Debt Collection, Judicial Oversight, Administrative Action Review, Notice Requirements, Bill of Rights Limitation
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Electricity Regulation Act Municipal Debt Collection Judicial Oversight Administrative Action Review Notice Requirements +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afriforum NPC & Others

Applicant

Astral Operations Limited & Another

Applicant

Bridgestone SA (Proprietary) Limited & Others

Applicant

Mediclinic Brits (Proprietary) Limited & Others

Applicant

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Consolidated Hearing of Multiple Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eskom may lawfully interrupt bulk electricity supply to municipalities as a debt collection measure without prior judicial authorisation.
  2. 2 Whether section 21(5) of the Electricity Regulation Act is unconstitutional for failing to require judicial oversight before Eskom interrupts supply.
  3. 3 Whether Eskom's decisions to interrupt supply were unconstitutional, unlawful, or unreasonable and subject to review under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Eskom's decisions to interrupt bulk electricity supply to municipalities were rendered moot by subsequent settlement agreements and undertakings not to implement the interruptions. The applications for declaratory, interdictory, and review relief regarding the withdrawn decisions were dismissed as moot, with no exceptional circumstances warranting adjudication. The court found that section 21(5) of the Electricity Regulation Act does not require prior judicial authorisation for Eskom to interrupt supply to municipalities, and that reading down or reading in such a requirement is not linguistically or constitutionally justified. The interruption of supply is not...

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed as moot; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applications under case numbers 99984/2015, 3078/2017, and 19819/17 are dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.