Bethulie Water Forum and Another v Bloemwater and Others (2174/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 307 (3 December 2021)

Bethulie Water Forum and Another v Bloemwater and Others (2174/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 307 (3 December 2021)

The court found that the applicants did not properly plead a constitutional challenge to section 4(5) of the Water Services Act in their founding affidavit, and the relief sought would effectively amend the statutory provision without a declaration of invalidity. Granting the order would impermissibly encroach on the legislative domain and offend the separation of powers. The applicants failed to establish the requirements for an interim interdict, as their pleadings did not align with the relief sought in the amended notice of motion. The application was therefore dismissed as incompetent.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 307
Parties
Applicant: Bethulie Water Forum; Applicant: Gariepdam Belastingbetalers Vereeniging; Respondent: Bloemwater; Respondent: Kopanong Local Municipality; Respondent: Premier of the Free State; Respondent: Minister of Water Affairs and Sanitation
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2021
Case Number
2174/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Water Services Act, Interim Interdict, Separation of Powers, Constitutional Right to Water
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Water Services Act Interim Interdict Separation of Powers Constitutional Right to Water

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bethulie Water Forum

Applicant

Gariepdam Belastingbetalers Vereeniging

Applicant

Bloemwater

Respondent

Kopanong Local Municipality

Respondent

Premier of the Free State

Respondent

Minister of Water Affairs and Sanitation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict restraining Bloemwater from limiting bulk water supply under section 4(5) of the Water Services Act pending a constitutional challenge.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought by the applicants would impermissibly amend section 4(5) of the Water Services Act and offend the separation of powers.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established the requirements for an interim interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants did not properly plead a constitutional challenge to section 4(5) of the Water Services Act in their founding affidavit, and the relief sought would effectively amend the statutory provision without a declaration of invalidity. Granting the order would impermissibly encroach on the legislative domain and offend the separation of powers. The applicants failed to establish the requirements for an interim interdict, as their pleadings did not align with the relief sought in the amended notice of motion. The application was therefore dismissed as incompetent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.