Sakeliga Applies for Leave to Appeal in Water Billing Case

Sakeliga, TLU SA and six farming operations have applied for leave to appeal the High Court's refusal to decide whether water-use charges for commercial purposes are subject to the three-year prescription period in the Prescription Act.

In a ruling handed down on 17 September, the Pretoria High Court turned down our request for a declaratory order. The court declined to rule on whether the water-use charges levied by the Department of Water and Sanitation have prescribed (lapsed), arguing that such matters could only be ruled on in later stages of the dispute, and that farmers could meanwhile exercise alternative remedies. Sakeliga contends that the court erred in this finding.

In the same judgment, Sakeliga and our co-applicants did obtain partial relief when the court ordered the DWS to provide the six farming applicants with complete, itemised statements and the relevant invoices for all amounts it claims, within 60 days. This prayer of the order is not the subject of the appeal.

Grounds of appeal

Sakeliga and our co-litigants have filed for leave to appeal because the dispute between farmers and the DWS about water charges and prescription remains unresolved and has real consequences. The High Court's ruling incorrectly leaves it entirely up to the DWS to decide whether and when the underlying legal dispute will be brought before a court.

The DWS continues to demand full payment of prescribed water-use charges, including interest, regardless of disputes. It has expressly stated in writing that, in its view, water use charges do not expire under the Prescription Act, claiming instead that payment is a constitutional obligation.

Under the National Water Act, the Department can impose interest, restrict or suspend water supplies, and hold property owners directly responsible for outstanding amounts. In fact, the Department has even threatened to report supposedly non-paying farmers to credit bureaus and publicly disclose their identities.

In making its erroneous finding, the High Court failed to appreciate that the Superior Courts Act empowers courts to determine existing, future, or contingent rights and obligations, even without the prior issue of a summons. The DWS does not first need to take farmers to court to enforce its demands in order for farmers to be entitled to judicial relief.

Furthermore, the High Court failed to consider the broader public interest in resolving this legal uncertainty. A proper consideration of such public interest would appreciate the need for a definitive ruling in order to prevent case-by-case litigation from potentially thousands of applicants to resolve what is essentially the same legal issue, causing an extreme, unnecessary and avoidable burden on public resources.

Context

For years, the DWS has pursued farmers for disputed water-use charges, some of which predate the National Water Act of 1998. In October 2021, the Department accepted that these charges prescribe after three years, but later contradicted that position.

Sakeliga and its co-applicants launched their application in the Pretoria High Court in July 2025 to stop the Department of Water and Sanitation from unlawfully collecting disputed water-use charges. The matter was heard on 11 August 2026, with judgment delivered on 17 September. The application for leave to appeal was filed on 8 October.

Our stance remains that any charges for water use levied against farmers, businesses, or other entities must be supported by transparent, verifiable, itemised billing, and supposed debts that remain unresolved and uncollected cannot be demanded indefinitely.

Resources

• Application for leave to appeal
• Sakeliga Wins Partial Relief for Farmers in Water Billing Case