Judgment No. SC 54/2018 Case No. SC 228/14 dispute the amount due as an excuse for refusing to pay the bill. The appellant consistently disputed any linkage to the bulk meter and contended that the water charges levied were not unlawful. Therefore, there was no proper legal basis for the provisional order granted a quo, which order also sets a dangerous precedent for the provision of utility supplies generally. I agree with Mr Girach that the papers filed before the court a quo indicate an absence of clarity as to the status of the bulk supply meter. On the other hand, I am also persuaded by Mr Mpofu that this issue is of negligible relevance in casu. The uncontested factual position is that the respondent had regularly paid his bills on time and had constantly called upon the appellant to regularise his account after being billed for usage recorded on the bulk meter. Despite promises to look into the matter, the appellant did nothing to assist but proceeded to bill the respondent and eventually disconnected his water supply. In short, the respondent made all efforts to show that his bill was incorrect and not due, but to no avail. Furthermore, I am unable to accept the argument that the decision of the court below sets any dangerous precedent with the ensuing likelihood of chaos in the provision of utility services generally. The facts of this case are distinctive and peculiar to the circumstances of the respondent in his dealings with the appellant. In the event, I am satisfied that the respondent had established a sufficiently clear right entitling him to the interdictory and spoliatory relief granted by the court a quo. DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS e-mail: veritas@mango.zw; website: www.veritaszim.net Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. 7