Judgment No. SC 54/2018 Case No. SC 228/14 prior to disconnecting his water supply. On that basis, the appellant’s conduct would have been unlawful, but for reasons different from those founding the respondent’s cause of action. In any event, I am satisfied that the respondent did establish a sufficiently clear right entitling him to the interdictory and spoliatory relief granted by the court a quo. I also agree with the respondent’s position that the interim order granted below is materially different from the final order sought on the return date and that it is not categorically definitive in its terms or effect. Turning to the larger issues apropos the validity of the impugned 1913 Byelaws, I take the view that their provisions, construed in their entirety, are not only reasonable in their operation but also intra vires the enabling provisions of the Urban Councils Act. Furthermore, I am not persuaded by the respondent’s contention that the Bye-laws are incompatible with the right to water enshrined in s 77 of the Constitution. Thus, the appellant’s power to disconnect water supplies for non-payment of water accounts, provided it is reasonably applied and enforced, and exercised in strict compliance with the conditions prescribed in the Bye-laws, is both statutorily and constitutionally unimpeachable. It follows from the foregoing that the appeal fails in relation to the specific interim relief granted by the court a quo in favour of the respondent, but succeeds in establishing the overall legality of the Bye-laws relied upon by the appellant. For this reason, I think it just and equitable that neither party should be penalised with the costs of this appeal or the costs 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. 30