Judgment pending in test case against prescribed water-use charges

The High Court in Pretoria reserved judgment on 11 August 2026 in the application by Sakeliga, TLU SA, and six others against the Department of Water and Sanitation's unlawful attempts at collection of decades-old disputed and non-itemised water-use charges.

The application is an important test for the proper application of prescription law to statutory charges and the limits of state revenue-collection powers. It aims to shield agricultural water users from ongoing threats, while upholding important principles on what the state may charge, and how, for all businesses across the economy.

Sakeliga is seeking an order in two parts:

1. First, a declaratory order that charges for water use under the National Water Act, for commercial and agricultural purposes, are subject to a three-year prescription period.
   
2. Second, an order compelling the Department to furnish proper accounts and invoices to farmers and other water users.

For years, the Department has attempted to collect decades-old disputed water-use charges, some of which even predated the National Water Act's commencement in 1998. Despite these disputed charges being more than three years old – and therefore prescribed under law (lapsed and of no effect) – the Department subjected farmers to harassment and intimidation by debt collectors, threats of legal action, and demands for payment without proper itemised billing statements.

The constant threat of unlawful collection action on prescribed debts disrupts business planning, makes financial budgeting onerous for commercial farmers, can force reductions in agricultural production, and risks employment setbacks where operations become financially strained.

Sakeliga's arguments

Sakeliga and our co-applicants advanced two core arguments before the court:

• Charges for water use cannot be classified as taxes
  
  Under section 57(5) of the National Water Act, water-use charges are explicitly prohibited from functioning as taxes, levies, or duties. Consequently, the government cannot invoke the extended 30-year prescription window reserved for tax debts, meaning these ordinary debts expire after three years pursuant to section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. The court should declare this to be the case.

• Itemised billing
  
  Billed charges must reflect actual water consumption. Current billing statements issued by the Department fail to satisfy this requirement, as they only reflect unspecified balances rather than providing itemised details with specific dates and invoices. The court should issue an order to compel the Department to ensure proper accounting and invoicing.

Context

In October 2021, the Department itself admitted that water-use charges prescribe after three years. However, it later reversed that position and continues to pursue disputed historical amounts without ever substantiating them with itemised invoices.

Sakeliga and our co-applicant’s position is that a farmer, company, or other entity billed for water use should know what they are being charged for and should be able to confirm whether that amount reflects the correct charges for actual water use. Moreover, the Department cannot maintain alleged debts for statutory charges in violation of the statutory provisions on prescription.

Judgment has been reserved, and Sakeliga and our co-applicants are currently awaiting the outcome.