Judgment No. SC 54/2018
Case No. SC 228/14
High Court Judgment
The High Court found that the relevant legislation governing water supplies
divested the appellant of any unfettered discretion to disconnect water supplies. In any
case, where the appellant sought to do so for any alleged failure to pay, it could only
disconnect upon proof that the consumer in question had failed to pay the charges due.
Moreover, the appellant could not arrogate to itself the right to determine when payment is
due without the requisite proof secured by due process or recourse to a court of law. The
court opined that the right to potable water is enshrined in the Constitution and that the
appellant, being a public body, cannot deny water to any citizen without just cause.
Furthermore, the relevant by-law relied upon by the appellant was not only unconstitutional
but also ultra vires its parent legislation because it conferred sole jurisdiction upon the
appellant to determine any disputed bill without recourse to the courts.
In the event, the court a quo granted interim relief, pending the final
determination of the matter, ordering the appellant to immediately restore water supply to
the respondent’s rented premises and to refrain from interfering with the respondent’s
possession of the premises by terminating his water supply. The appellant was also ordered
to pay the costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. The final order sought in the
provisional order contained an interdict prohibiting the appellant from interfering with,
disrupting or terminating the respondent’s water supply without the authority of a court
order.
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.
2