South Africa Case Law

Crocodile River West Irrigation Board v Allies Farms SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (4389/2019)

Crocodile River West Irrigation Board v Allies Farms SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (4389/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 63 (29 November 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

4389/2019

Judge

E M Makgoba

The High Court granted an irrigation board leave to amend its particulars of claim, holding the proposed pleading was not excipiable under the National Water Act.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Water Use Charges
• Transitional Provisions
• Exception Procedure
• Irrigation Board Powers
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Saunderson v Boegoeberg Water Users Association (338/22)

Saunderson v Boegoeberg Water Users Association (338/22) [2022] ZANCHC 86 (12 August 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

338/22

Judge

Nxumalo

The court found that the respondent acted within its statutory powers under the National Water Act by suspending the applicant's water supply for non-payment of water use charges. The applicant, as current owner, is liable for charges on the land, including historic charges, and was given adequate notice and opportunity to make representations as required by the Act. The respondent's conduct did not amount to spoliation or unlawful parate executie, as it followed the procedures set out in the Act. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to relief, as he did not comply with his o…

Source excerpt

• National Water Act
• Water Use Charges
• Spoliation
• Interim Interdict
• Parate Executie

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Amathole District Municipality (1040/2018)

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Amathole District Municipality (1040/2018) [2020] ZAECELLC 13; 2021 (4) SA 252 (ECG) (1 September 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

1040/2018

Judge

Griffiths

The court held that the defendant's obligations to pay water use charges and research levies, as pleaded by the plaintiff, arise from constitutional duties and statutory provisions enacted to give effect to the right of access to water. These obligations are not debts as contemplated by the Prescription Act and do not prescribe. Even if the debts arising from subordinate legislation have prescribed, the court retains the power under section 172 of the Constitution to consider such debts when granting just and equitable relief. The principle of subsidiarity does not bar the plaintiff from seek…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Application
• Constitutional Obligations
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Water Use Charges
• Declaration Of Invalidity

Karan t/a Karan Feedlot v Minister of Water and Sanitation (81265/17)

Karan t/a Karan Feedlot v Minister of Water and Sanitation (81265/17) [2019] ZAGPPHC 572 (11 October 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

81265/17

Judge

C J van der Westhuizen

The High Court held the applicant was not liable for disputed water charges drawn directly from the Suikerbosrand River and granted interdictory and declaratory relief.

• Water Use Charges
• Trans Caledon Tunnel Authority
• Pricing Strategy For Water Use
• Riparian Rights
• Government Waterworks
• Water Research Fund Charges

Prosch and Others v Impala Water Users Association (428/05)

Prosch and Others v Impala Water Users Association (428/05) [2006] ZASCA 171 (28 September 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

428/05

Judges

Farlam, Brand, Lewis, Ponnan, Theron

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants' defences based on the alleged failure to produce a proper assessment roll were unfounded, as compliance with clause 18 of the constitution was not a prerequisite for liability or for instituting proceedings to recover charges. The respondent was entitled to raise water use charges to pay debts lawfully incurred, including those arising from the dam financing component and the term loan agreement with First Rand Bank Ltd, which had been ratified by the management committee. The power to assess charges extended to anticipated future expendit…

Source excerpt

• Water Use Charges
• National Water Act
• Constitution Of Water User Association
• Assessment Roll Requirements
• Set Off Of Liquidated Claims
• Dam Financing Component

Lourens NO and Others v Impala Water Users Association (534/04)

Lourens NO and Others v Impala Water Users Association (534/04) [2006] ZASCA 76; [2006] SCA 82 (RSA) (31 May 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

534/04

Judges

JA Heher, Brand JA, Howie P, Scott JA, Van Heerden JA

The court held that a water association had to prove both the fact and quantum of disputed charges before enforcing supply restrictions under s 59(3)(b).

• Water Use Charges
• Statutory Enforcement
• Onus Of Proof
• Representation Hearing
• Water-use-charges
• Statutory-enforcement