In most instances the consumers who are using prepaid cards to purchase electricity only buy electricity leaving out the other services.
The resultant effect is that all other services accumulate arrears.
The municipality blocks the cards on the vending machines so as to avert any electricity purchases being made without paying for the other services.
This is illegal as enunciated in the following decided case:
In the case of Hartzenberg & Others versus Nelson Mandela Metropolitan (Despatch Administrative Unit) (2003) JOL10625 (SE) the applicants, residents of the township of Reservoir Hills (Despatch), unlawfully occupied houses owned by Saambou Bank.
The water accounts were in arrears.
Saambou wanted to sell the houses, but first had to obtain a clearance certificate from the municipality indicating all municipal services had been paid in full.
Saambou could not accept responsibility for any outstanding service charges as the applicants occupied the houses unlawfully.
The municipality responded by terminating the supply of prepaid electricity to the households in question.
The only issue before the court was whether the municipality was entitled to cut the prepaid electricity supply of the applicants because of their failure to pay their water accounts.
In considering the matter, the court interpreted two sets of statutory provisions, namely Section 19 of the Standard Electricity Supply Bylaw (Province of the Cape of Good Hope, 1987) and Sections 96, 97(1) (g) and 102 of the
Municipal Systems Act.
The court held that the words ” any supply” used in section 19 of the former dealt specifically with the supply of electricity (whether prepaid or otherwise) and with no other service, and ruled that if the legislature wanted to refer to another municipal service, it would have specifically done so.
Therefore, the municipality could not use this provision to argue that the elec
tricity supply could be terminated due to the applicants’ non-payment of another supply, namely the water supply.
The court held that the mentioned provisions of the Systems Act also did not assist the municipality in its cause and did not provide it with any powers to terminate the electricity supply.
Important to note is the court’s comment on the status of the municipality’s credit control policy.
It interpreted Section 98 of the Systems Act as requiring the municipality to adopt a bylaw to give effect to its credit control and debt collection policies.
As the municipality could not provide such a bylaw to the court, the legality of the policies was questioned.
The court ruled that the municipality was not entitled to discontinue the supply of prepaid electricity due to the applicants being in arrears on their water accounts and the municipality was ordered to reconnect the electricity supply.
In the latter judgment the unique nature of the municipal service was taken into account, as it was on a prepaid cash basis and not on a regular credit basis.
Prepaid electricity is not a municipal service for which a municipal service account can be in arrears as it is not payable by consumers in favour of the municipality.
Although water supply rendered to the consumers fits the interpretation given to Section 97(1) of the Municipal Systems Act, prepaid electricity supply is not subject to the municipal service account.
When defining a municipal service in order to support its argument, the court did take note of the fact that the national legislature gave a definition for a municipal service in the Local
Government Laws Amendment Act, 2002.
The municipality is advised to take heed of this case or open itself to
litigation.
Sonwabile Luwaca, Standerton.
For free breaking and community news, visit our websites:
Ridge Times, Standerton Advertiser & Highvelder
Like our Facebook page and follow us on Twitter.
For news straight to your phone invite us:
BBM – 5bf99755
WhatsApp – 0731082205
