Sakeliga protects municipal dispute processes with urgent court order in North West 

• Municipal end-users do not have to pay for services not delivered to them or not correctly invoiced, as long as they conduct themselves reasonably and follow a legally sound process.
• The North West High Court ordered on Friday 31 May 2024 that the Ditsobotla Local Municipality should restore electricity to end-users who had withheld payment subsequent to properly initiated disputes.
• Municipalities are duty-bound to strictly comply with their own credit policies and procedures. While end-users may not withhold payment in general and without specifying disputes, they may do so for those amounts on municipal statements that have valid disputes in place.

On 31 May 2024, Sakeliga obtained an urgent interdict in the North West High Court protecting municipal end-users. The order protects end-users who withhold payments from a municipality in cases where they have a valid dispute in place.

The court prohibited the Ditsobotla local municipality from disconnecting the electricity of end-users with valid disputes over municipal bills and has ordered the restoration of supply where it has been disconnected. By agreement between the parties, end-users will pay the amounts owed to the municipality where there is no dispute.

Sakeliga undertook this court case in conjunction with and in support of the Ditsobotla Dienstevereniging (Ditsobotla Services Association, DSV) and its affected members. We did so as part of the broader legal strategy that Sakeliga is pursuing in Ditsobotla, namely, to develop jurisprudence and support models that offer proper intervention and alternative solutions to municipal failure. For this, the ability to declare valid disputes over erroneously issued bills is indispensable.

The DDV, AgriNW, and various end-users were co-applicants in the case.

Section 102 of the Municipal Systems Act stipulates that a municipality may not interrupt service delivery to parties over amounts on those parties’ accounts where a valid dispute has been lodged until the dispute is resolved. Municipalities are also obliged to strictly adhere to their own credit policies and procedures.

Sakeliga's Mission: Building Scalable Solutions to State Failure

• Join thousands of dedicated, mission-aligned funders
• Protect our communities from a failing state
• Secure a flourishing economy in the place you love

Our Mission & Impact

Members of the DDV who have been targeted recently by the municipality for disconnection of electricity supply despite valid disputes, gain direct protection through this order.

The court order demonstrates that municipal end-users can gain protection against a municipality if they properly organise, such as within a services association, act reasonably, and follow the correct processes to declare disputes over questionable bills.

Importantly, however, such protection is not unconditional and municipal end-users must handle disputes and the withholding of amounts under valid disputes carefully and responsibly.

Sakeliga believes that end users who want to enjoy the best chance of legal protection should at least make the following provisions:

1. Own measurements: End-users must ensure the technical capability to reliably measure their own usage.
2. Account comparison: End-users should compare their own measurements with municipal bills and determine what they agree and disagree with.
3. Payments for valid amounts: End-users must make payments for amounts or portions of amounts where there is no dispute.
4. Formal disputes over invalid amounts: End-users can withhold payment for amounts they disagree with after properly declaring a formal dispute.

End users who follow the correct steps place themselves in a position to defend their withholding of payments in a legal process, placing greater accountability back on municipal billing systems.