Judgment No. SC 54/2018 Case No. SC 228/14 reiterated in every monthly rates statement sent out to owners or occupiers of property generally. It is obviously not the same as the very specific “twenty-four hours’ notice in writing” of impending and imminent disconnection, stipulated under clause 8(a) of the standard contract, for non-payment of sums previously invoiced and already due. The respondent’s averment that his water supply was disconnected on the same day as the day on which the notice of disconnection was received does not appear to have been disputed by the appellant. If that averment is correct, it would follow that the appellant’s conduct was unlawful, but for reasons entirely different from those grounding the respondent’s claim of spoliation and the decision of the court a quo in that particular respect. That being the case, I do not agree with Mr Mpofu’s submission that the appellant’s failure to give the requisite notice of disconnection, if it is proven, affords a proper basis for dismissing the entire appeal, which has been mounted on other substantive grounds specifically addressed and determined by the court a quo. In any event, I take the view that those grounds relate to matters of considerable public importance warranting their comprehensive adjudication by this Court. This is particularly so as there are several extant decisions of the High Court with divergent findings and conclusions on the legality of water disconnections by municipal authorities. Propriety of Interim Relief Granted Mr Girach submits that the grant of an interdict or spoliation order requires the establishment of a clear right. The case before the High Court involved a dispute of fact as to whether or not the respondent’s water bill was due. All that the respondent did was to 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. 6