Judgment No. SC 54/2018 Case No. SC 228/14 scope of the rights conferred and the concomitant obligations imposed, I am inclined to regard s 77 as being essentially policy-oriented and hortatory in nature. This is not to render the provision entirely nugatory but rather to recognise that the extent of its practical enforceability is not necessarily self-evident in every circumstance. My reading of s 77 of the Constitution is that the possible violation of its provisions is only implicated where the State or a local authority fails to provide any or adequate water supply to any given community or locality. It might also arise where, as appears to have been recently admitted by the appellant itself, having afforded an adequate water supply to most inhabitants, it is then discovered that such supply is in fact contaminated and therefore only potable at great risk. In contrast, it is difficult to envisage how the broad import of s 77 might be invoked in the case of a consumer, who has full or adequate access to water supply, but is deprived thereof by being disconnected for having failed to pay for water consumed and after having received due notice and warning to settle his account. Even assuming that my overall construction of s 77 is flawed, I have no doubt that the powers conferred by the Bye-laws in casu can be appropriately scrutinised and evaluated to ensure that they comply with and do not infringe the requirements of s 77, no matter how imprecise and ill-defined those requirements may be. Having regard to my earlier assessment of the processes embodied in the Bye-laws pertaining to the supply of water, I take the view that the power to disconnect water supply exercisable by the Council is eminently reasonable and does not in any way contravene s 77 of the Constitution. 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. 28