Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Zuma v City of Tshwane Metro Municipality and Another (018876/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 430 (6 May 2025)
The High Court confirmed a rule nisi, finding no prima facie proof of tampering and holding the municipality’s electricity disconnection unlawful.
Sheng Teng (Pty) Ltd v SA Bulk Commodity Trading and Storage Services (Pty) Ltd (2024/111687) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1041 (15 October 2024)
The court found that the applicant was in lawful possession of the leased property and required electricity supply for its business operations. The supply of electricity was not merely a personal right arising from contract but was incidental to the possession and use of the property. The respondent's unilateral disconnection of electricity constituted unlawful dispossession and self-help, which mandament van spolie is designed to prevent. The court distinguished Masinda and Simons on the basis that those cases involved private homes and prepaid electricity, where the right to supply was not…
Source excerpt
Highlands CC v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (6835/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 322 (19 September 2024)
The High Court held that Matjhabeng Local Municipality unlawfully removed individual electricity meters and installed a bulk meter without proving consent or authority.
Timeout Sports Bar (Pty) Ltd t/a Timeout Sport v Kyalam (0037622/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 446 (14 September 2021)
The High Court confirmed a final interdict after finding the landlord unlawfully cut the tenant’s electricity, amounting to spoliation, and ordered attorney-and-client costs.
Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd v Sidoyi and Others (1207/2018) [2019] ZASCA 65 (28 May 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the central issue was whether the electricity installations to the respondents' homes were lawfully installed. There was a material dispute of fact on the papers regarding the lawfulness of the supply, which could not be resolved without oral evidence. The court found that if the supply was unlawful, the respondents had no right or legitimate expectation to its restoration, and the removal of illegal apparatus would not constitute administrative action under PAJA. Conversely, if the supply was lawful, the respondents would be entitled to relief. The matte…
Source excerpt
Explore more
