Molefe and Another v Merafong Local Municipality and Others (63816/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1088 (17 October 2017)

Molefe and Another v Merafong Local Municipality and Others (63816/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1088 (17 October 2017)

The court found that the implementation of the previous order, specifically the reduction of water pressure and restricted supply hours, had resulted in the deprivation of water to residents in higher areas of Blyvooruitzicht. The evidence, including the Wetcon engineering report, demonstrated that limiting pressure was not a practical solution and that water should be supplied at full pressure during limited hours. The court held that the applicants are entitled to a variation of the previous order to ensure adequate water supply and that the respondents must cooperate to restore and maintain the supply. The matter was urgent due to the ongoing deprivation of a basic right, and the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1088
Parties
Applicant: Pule Molefe; Applicant: Residents of the Blyvooruitzicht; Respondent: Merafong Local Municipality; Respondent: Rand Water; Respondent: Minister of Water and Sanitation; Respondent: Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs for Gauteng; Respondent: Premier of Gauteng Province; Respondent: MEC of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs for Gauteng; Respondent: Leigh Roering NO; Respondent: KPMM Construction (Pty) Limited; Respondent: MME Manufacturing Company (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Double D & G Building Contractors CC; Respondent: AngloGold Ashanti Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2017
Case Number
63816/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Vary Previous Court Order and Seek Restoration of Water Supply
Outcome
Application granted; previous order varied; respondents directed to restore water supply and engage in good faith to find alternative solutions; costs awarded against second respondent.
Judges
M W Msimeki
Legal Topics
Water Services Act, Right of Access to Water, Urgent Interdict, Variation of Court Order
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Water Services Act Right of Access to Water Urgent Interdict Variation of Court Order

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pule Molefe

Applicant

Residents of the Blyvooruitzicht

Applicant

Merafong Local Municipality

Respondent

Rand Water

Respondent

Minister of Water and Sanitation

Respondent

Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs for Gauteng

Respondent

Premier of Gauteng Province

Respondent

MEC of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs for Gauteng

Respondent

Leigh Roering NO

Respondent

KPMM Construction (Pty) Limited

Respondent

MME Manufacturing Company (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Double D & G Building Contractors CC

Respondent

AngloGold Ashanti Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Vary Previous Court Order and Seek Restoration of Water Supply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a variation of the previous court order regarding water supply to Blyvooruitzicht Mining Village.
  2. 2 Whether the reduction of water pressure and restricted supply hours have deprived residents of access to sufficient water.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have complied with their statutory and contractual obligations to supply water.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the implementation of the previous order, specifically the reduction of water pressure and restricted supply hours, had resulted in the deprivation of water to residents in higher areas of Blyvooruitzicht. The evidence, including the Wetcon engineering report, demonstrated that limiting pressure was not a practical solution and that water should be supplied at full pressure during limited hours. The court held that the applicants are entitled to a variation of the previous order to ensure adequate water supply and that the respondents must cooperate to restore and maintain the supply. The matter was urgent due to the ongoing deprivation of a basic right, and the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; previous order varied; respondents directed to restore water supply and engage in good faith to find alternative solutions; costs awarded against second respondent.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1.2 of the previous order is deleted in its entirety.
  • The hours of water supply in paragraph 1.3 are replaced with 'the hours of 4 pm to 10 pm'.