Judgment No. SC 54/2018 Case No. SC 228/14 (h) fixing the duties of consumers in respect of meters and the settlement of disputes as to the amount of water supplied or the tariff applicable.” In its judgment, the court a quo reasoned that the appellant could not rely on the Bye-Laws, as read with s 198(3) of the Act, for its purported claim to disconnect water supplies. This was because s 198(3) is subject to para 69(2)(e) of the Schedule which deliberately omits the words “in the opinion of the Council”, thus divesting the appellant of any unfettered discretion in the matter and rendering invalid the Bye-laws in question. The appellant could therefore only disconnect water supplies upon proof of failure to pay by due process or recourse to the courts. While these conclusions are not entirely untenable, the approach adopted by the learned judge is, with great respect, somewhat narrow and unilinear. It overlooks several well-established canons of statutory interpretation which enjoin, inter alia, that the provisions of a statute must be construed not in isolation but as a unitary whole and in a purposive manner having regard to the overall objects of the statute. Section 198(3) of the Act, in my view, is a broad enabling provision which empowers every urban council to do whatever it deems necessary to administer or effectuate its by-laws. The Third Schedule enumerates the myriad matters in respect of which a council may make by-laws. Paragraph 69 of that Schedule confers the power to make by-laws specifically for the purpose of regulating and rationing the supply and distribution of water. Although the powers exercisable under s 198(3) are “subject to this 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. 17