Judgment No. SC 54/2018 Case No. SC 228/14 Bearing in mind the enormous economic and budgetary considerations that would ordinarily arise in the provision of safe and clean water to a large populace, it cannot be said that the disconnection of water supply by reason of non-payment for water consumed in any specific instance constitutes an infringement of the constitutional right to water. Indeed, it may be necessary to do so to ensure that the majority of non-defaulting consumers continue to enjoy their respective rights to water. In other words, the power to disconnect the water supply of any individual consumer in the manner prescribed is a necessary incident of the measures necessary to safeguard the rights of other consumers at large. This approach accords squarely with the dictates of s 86(1) of the Constitution, to wit, that fundamental rights and freedoms must be exercised reasonably and with due regard for the rights and freedoms of others. In the premises, I am of the considered opinion that the application and enforcement of the 1913 Bye-laws do not negate or impede the progressive realisation of the right to safe, clean and potable water as envisaged by s 77 of the Constitution. Having concluded that there is no contravention of s 77, it becomes unnecessary to delve into the question as to whether the Bye-laws constitute a limitation that is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society within the contemplation of s 86(2) of the Constitution. Disposition The particular facts of this case, insofar as they relate to the respondent himself, indicate that the appellant probably did not give him the requisite 24 hours written notice 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. 29