Brandfort Forum and Others v Masilonyana Local Municipality and Others (4949/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 288 (5 November 2021)

Brandfort Forum and Others v Masilonyana Local Municipality and Others (4949/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 288 (5 November 2021)

The court found that the applicants had established urgency and a prima facie right to relief. There was no evidence of a lawful council resolution authorizing the installation of pre-paid meters, no proper community participation, and no evidence of a lawful procurement process for appointing the third respondent. The contract provided was unsigned and of no evidentiary value. The tariffs for pre-paid electricity appeared to be elevated and possibly illegal, and there was no evidence that the third respondent was registered with NERSA. The lack of transparency and failure to comply with statutory requirements created a real probability of unlawful conduct. Allowing the installation to...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 288
Parties
Applicant: Brandfort Forum; Applicant: Ina Beukes N.O.; Applicant: Frans Bester Posthumus N.O.; Applicant: Johan Albertus Fourie N.O.; Respondent: Masilonyana Local Municipality; Respondent: Lejweleputswa District Municipality; Respondent: Mafuma Consulting (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2021
Case Number
4949/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review And/or Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Interim interdict granted restraining respondents from installing pre-paid electricity meters pending review or declaratory proceedings.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Municipal Procurement, Community Participation, Electricity Tariffs, Unlawful Administrative Action
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Municipal Procurement Community Participation Electricity Tariffs Unlawful Administrative Action

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brandfort Forum

Applicant

Ina Beukes N.O.

Applicant

Frans Bester Posthumus N.O.

Applicant

Johan Albertus Fourie N.O.

Applicant

Masilonyana Local Municipality

Respondent

Lejweleputswa District Municipality

Respondent

Mafuma Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review And/or Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the installation of pre-paid electricity meters by the municipality was lawful and complied with statutory and constitutional requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the procurement process for appointing the third respondent was lawful and competitive.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to an urgent interim interdict pending review or declaratory proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established urgency and a prima facie right to relief. There was no evidence of a lawful council resolution authorizing the installation of pre-paid meters, no proper community participation, and no evidence of a lawful procurement process for appointing the third respondent. The contract provided was unsigned and of no evidentiary value. The tariffs for pre-paid electricity appeared to be elevated and possibly illegal, and there was no evidence that the third respondent was registered with NERSA. The lack of transparency and failure to comply with statutory requirements created a real probability of unlawful conduct. Allowing the installation to...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted restraining respondents from installing pre-paid electricity meters pending review or declaratory proceedings.

Orders

  • The first, second and third respondents are interdicted and restrained with immediate effect from installing any pre-paid electricity meters in Brandfort pending an application for review or declaratory relief.
  • The applicants must institute the intended application(s) within fifteen (15) court days from the date of this order, excluding the day of the order.