Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

1]  Applicants brought an urgent application on 29 September 2019 to interdict respondent from disconnecting the electricity supply to first applicant pending finalisation of an application for the review of respondent’s decision to disconnect the electricity supply. The matter was then adjourned to 03 October 2019 for respondent to file an answering affidavit and also the filing of a replying affidavit.

2]  On 03 October 2019 I was informed that a date had been obtained on the opposed roll on 06 December 2019 for the hearing of the said application.  The only issue at this stage is whether interim relief should be granted preventing the disconnection of the electricity supply. Mr Shangisa, on behalf of respondent, opposed the granting of such relief.  Mr Pretorius appeared on behalf of a company Lanxeso Cisa (Pty) Ltd, a chrome plant in Newcastle, KwaZulu-Natal, requesting leave to intervene.  First and second applicant did not oppose such application and respondent indicated that it would abide the decision of the court.

3]  Lanxeso Cisa (Pty) Ltd does have an interest in this matter as the disconnection of the electricity supply and even the interruption thereof will severely affect its operation.  Accordingly, it is just and equitable that Lanxeso Cisa (Pty) Ltd be granted leave to intervene.  In the circumstances it may be prudent to allow them to be joined as second respondent.  The issue to be decided is whether a disconnection or even an interruption of the electricity supply to first applicant should be interdicted pending the finalization of the application.