Ackerman v City Of Johannesburg [2024] ZAGPJHC 334 (5 April 2024)

The applicant, Sharise Erica Ackerman (Weiner), resides at a property in Johannesburg and is entirely dependent on the City of Johannesburg (the City) for the supply of electricity and water. The applicant has had a long and turbulent history of interaction with the City since March 2017 over excessive charges on her municipal account.

Between January 2019 and August 2022, the applicant paid R844,717.52 which she believes is in excess of the reasonable costs for electricity and water utilised at her property. The applicant has been paying an average of R12,000 per month, which she believes is also in excess of her deemed usage, while trying to resolve the ongoing dispute with the City. The applicant claims the City has been billing her based on estimated consumption rather than actual meter readings, resulting in inaccurate, excessive invoices.

The applicant has formally disputed the charges with the City numerous times since 2017, but the City has failed to provide adequate explanations or resolve the disputes. As a result, the applicant has instituted legal proceedings against the City to compel it to correct her municipal account and provide explanations for any corrections or reversals.

The core legal principle applied in this case is that for a "dispute" to exist under section 102(2) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, a consumer must:
1. Raise a dispute in relation to a specific amount or item on a municipal account, and not just in general terms.
2. Provide sufficient facts to enable the municipality to identify the disputed item or items and the basis for the consumer's objection.
3. Properly communicate the dispute to the municipality in accordance with any procedures provided by the municipality.
Once a valid dispute is raised, the municipality is prohibited from disconnecting the consumer's services until the dispute is resolved.

The court relied on the following case law in its reasoning:

1. Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Eskom Holdings Ltd and others [2017] ZACC 35; 2018 (1) SA 1 (CC)
2. Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and another; Bissett and others v Buffalo City Municipality and others; Transfer Rights Action Campaign and others v MEC, Local Government and Housing, Gauteng, and others (Kwazulu-Natal Law Society and Msunduzi Municipality as amici curiae) [2004] ZACC 9; 2005 (1) SA 530 (CC); 2005 (2) BCLR 150 (CC)
3. Argent Industrial Investment (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality [2017] ZAGPJHC 14; 2017 (3) SA 146 (GJ)
4. Euphorbia (Pty) Ltd t/a Gallagher Estates v City of Johannesburg [2016] ZAGPPHC 548
5. Joseph and others v City of Johannesburg and others [2009] ZACC 30; 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC); 2010 (3) BCLR 212 (CC)
6. Body Corporate Croftdene Mall v Ethekwini Municipality [2011] ZASCA 188; 2012 (4) SA 169 (SCA)
7. Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Ergo Mining (Pty) Ltd and another [2017] ZAGPJHC 263
8. Casting, Forging & Machining Cluster of South Africa (NPC) and others v National Energy Regulator of SA and others [2019] ZAGPPHC 967
9. 39 Van der Merwe Street Hillbrow CC v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and another (GJ) unreported case number 7784/2023 (24 March 2023)
10. Regona Properties (Pty) Ltd and another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and another [2023] ZAGPJHC 877
11. Body Corporate of Willow and Aloe Grove v City of Johannesburg and another [2023] ZAGPJHC 1451.