1. It is settled law that municipalities in South Africa are constitutionally and legally obliged to provide services to residents in exchange for reasonable fees and to ensure fair and accountable governance.
2. Consumers are not obligated to pay for municipal services that have not been rendered.
3. A problem that often occurs in practice is that consumers receive inaccurate municipal accounts that require payment for services that have not been rendered.
4. When disputed amounts are not settled, water and electricity services are then often disconnected on short notice, or without any notice to the consumer, and the consumer is left with no option but to pay the disputed amounts and attempt to resolve the disputed charges at a later stage.
5. To complicate matters, there are frequent reports that municipalities do not always adhere strictly to the applicable legal requirements, or to their own credit control, debt collection policies and by-laws when disconnecting services.
6. At this juncture, it is important to point out that it is settled law that:
6.1. chapter 9 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 32 of 2000 (“the Systems Act”) is the primary legislation governing debt collection and credit control measures for all municipalities in South Africa;
6.2. generally, a municipality is not required to first obtain a court order to disconnect water or electricity (hereinafter collectively referred to as “services”) when a consumer’s account is in arrears, but a municipality is required to strictly comply with the statutory framework under the Constitution, the Systems Act, its own credit control, debt collection policies and/or by-laws before they are allowed to disconnect services to a premises;
6.3. the termination of services to a premises by a municipality also constitutes administrative action, which materially and adversely affects the rights of a consumer. As a result, any action taken by a municipality to terminate municipal services must be procedurally fair and comply with the provisions of the Constitution, and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”). On a practical level, this means that a municipality is required, as a minimum, before the intended termination of services, to:
6.3.1. give adequate ‘pre-termination’ notice to the account holder (and others that may be adversely affected, for example, commercial tenants of a building); and
6.3.2. give a reasonable opportunity to all those adversely affected to make representations to the municipality.
7. In the matter of Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC) (“Joseph”), the Constitutional Court, when considering what constitutes adequate pre-termination notice, stated the following:
“For the notice to be “adequate” it must contain all relevant information, including the date and time of the proposed disconnection, the reason for the proposed disconnection, and the place at which the affected parties can challenge the basis of the proposed disconnection. Moreover, it must afford the applicants sufficient time to make any necessary enquiries and investigations, to seek legal advice and to organise themselves collectively if they so wish. At a minimum, it seems to me that 14 days‘ pre-termination notice is fair, and is consistent with the provisions of the [municipality’s] Credit Control By-laws.”
[own emphasis provided]
8. Upon receipt of a pre-termination notice as stated above, a consumer is legally entitled to challenge incorrect billing and to raise a dispute in terms of Section 102(2) of the Systems Act.
9. Once a valid dispute has been raised in terms of Section 102(2) of the Systems Act, and a legitimate and ongoing dispute exists concerning a municipal account, the municipality is barred from implementing its debt collection measures (including the disconnection of services).
10. With regard to what would constitute a “valid dispute” in terms of Section 102(2) of the Systems Act, the Supreme Court of Appeal in the matter of Body Corporate Croftdene Mall v Ethekwini Municipality 2012 (4) SA 169 (SCA) and the Gauteng Division of the High Court (Johannesburg) in the matter of Van der Merwe Street Hillbrow CC v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (unreported case number 23/7784 (24 March 2023) outlined the following criteria:
10.1. the issue in dispute must relate to specific amounts that the municipality claims and the consumer disputes, in which case both the municipality and the consumer must advance irreconcilable contentions;
10.2. disputing an amount claimed must entail more than a mere denial, and must include sufficient facts outlining the grounds for the dispute. It must also enable the municipality to formulate a response with reference to the disputed item/s and the basis for the ratepayer’s objection to them;
10.3. the dispute must be between the municipality and the account holder;
10.4. the dispute must have existed at the time the debt collection measure was taken;
10.5. the dispute must be properly communicated to the appropriate municipal authorities in accordance with any established mechanisms and appeal procedures for querying accounts under Section 95(f) of the Systems Act; and
10.6. the Gauteng Division of the High Court (Johannesburg) in the matter of Tarica and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (2023/044543) [2025] ZAGPJHC 46 (27 January 2025) emphasised that:
10.6.1. whilst some precision is needed in raising disputed item/s and the basis for the ratepayer’s objection, requiring an exact disputed amount from the consumer can be an undue burden, especially when such information lies within the knowledge of the municipality. A dispute is valid if it is “… reasonably ascertainable and sufficiently specific, even if couched in broader terms. Whilst it does not permit vague or insubstantial complaints to be classified as disputes, an overly rigid or legalistic approach would not be appropriate”; and
10.6.2. the charges reflected on municipal accounts should be informed by accurate readings and properly calibrated meters.
11. Upon a proper consideration of the legal framework and the principles laid down in the caselaw outlined above, it is clear that when valid disputes are raised with a municipality:
11.1. it is the municipality that bears the burden of proving the accuracy of charges levied on an account; and
11.2. the municipality must prove the correctness of its meters, measurements and statements. The courts have made it clear that it cannot expect from a consumer to have full knowledge of a municipality’s internal workings to prove inaccuracies on municipal accounts.
12. When raising a dispute with a municipality, it is crucial to do so in writing (and to keep proof of what and when documents were given to a municipality) so that the consumer can prove that a dispute has been properly raised. Valid disputes raised by consumers are often simply ignored by municipalities, resulting in consumers having to resort to legal action to resolve such disputes.
If you are a consumer who needs assistance with a municipal account dispute, then please reach out to us, we would welcome the opportunity to assist you.
By: Ewald De Beer
