Judgment No. SC 54/2018 Case No. SC 228/14 Grounds of Appeal There are eight grounds of appeal in this matter. In essence, they relate, firstly, to the relief granted by the court a quo and, secondly, to the legality of the appellant’s actions generally. As regards the first aspect, the appellant challenges the provisional order on the grounds that the requirements for spoliatory and interdictory relief were not met and that the interim relief granted by the court has the same effect as the final relief sought. As for the second aspect, the grounds of appeal are premised on the power of the appellant to make by-laws and rules for its effective administration and the proposition that it acted lawfully in terms of those by-laws. The appellant impugns the finding of the court that the relevant by-law is both unconstitutional and ultra vires the enabling Act. The appellant further asserts that the right to water is not absolute but subject to limitations necessary for regional and town planning. Power to Disconnect Water Supplies The appellant derives its right to discontinue water supplied to its consumers from an antiquated Government Notice No. 164 of 1913, titled Bye-laws for Regulating the Supply and Use of Water within the Municipality of Salisbury. In particular, it relies not upon any specific by-law but upon a clause contained in its standard form contract governing the supply of water by meter, which contract is annexed as a schedule to the Bye-laws. Clause 8(a) of the standard contract stipulates that: “The Council may, by giving twenty-four hours’ notice in writing, without paying compensation and without prejudicing its right to obtain payment for water supplied to the consumer, discontinue the supply to the consumer– 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. 3