Landlord ordered to restore defaulting tenants’ water and power

The Johannesburg high court has ruled that a landlord may not cut off electricity and water supply without a court order, even if rent has not been paid.

Residents of a Johannesburg block of flats had their water and power cut off in 2021. They took their landlord to court, and these services were restored because the landlords “had taken the law into their own hands”. But the high court ruled on Tuesday that this did not stop the landlord instituting eviction proceedings.

The residents said in court papers that in 2021 they were served with notices from SK Enterprise, the firm managing the building as landlord, to vacate the property for not paying rent. Then their water and power were cut off. The residents’ lawyer asked the property’s caretaker in a letter to stop evictions and disconnections.

SK Enterprise did not comply with the request, and the residents went to court, saying the lease agreements were negotiated “illegally” as SK Enterprise was not the property owner.

SK Enterprise said all formalities were complied with though there was no written agreement, which is not a legal requirement. It provided documents to show it acted lawfully for building owner Jean Baptiste Mutangana, a member of SK Enterprise.

Acting judge M Olivier agreed with SK Enterprise on this point, saying it “was properly mandated to conclude lease agreements on behalf of the owner, and to collect rentals”. The residents wanted the company to disclose all its accounts and statements held with any bank in SA, but Olivier said they had “not provided any basis” for this.

Residents said SK Enterprise collected rates and taxes owed to the Johannesburg municipality, and failed to pay these over. Olivier said they provided “no legal or factual basis for their entitlement to this relief”. SK Enterprise provided proof of payment, showing payments were up to date, said Olivier. The judge criticised residents for a “poorly worded and ambiguous” request in their papers on rent and rental agreements. The court struggled to understand what they wanted.

Residents asked for an interdict to stop evictions, but SK Enterprise said this was premature as no eviction proceedings had begun, though it was lawful to start such proceedings due to nonpayment of rent. Oliver agreed with SK Enterprise.

The residents asked for water and electricity to be restored. SK

Enterprise did not deny turning these off, but said it was mitigating further loss since the residents’ rent included payment for water and electricity. Residents kept drawing water and power without paying SK Enterprise so it would have to pay for the benefit of defaulting residents.

But Olivier criticised the landlord company, saying that even when tenants won’t pay rent “landlords are not entitled to take the law into their own hands”. He said residents did make a “spoliation” request, the aim of which is to ensure that someone in possession of an item for some time, even illegally, cannot be deprived of it without the claimant having, for instance, a court order to take it back. Spoliation stops people taking the law into their own hands, even if ultimately they prove correct. To Olivier “disconnection … amounts to a deprivation” in this case, which cannot be done without a court order. They have no access to sufficient water and no electricity”, affecting their “human dignity and use of the property. Irrespective of the lawfulness or otherwise of the occupation, a landlord may not disconnect water and electricity without the intervention of a court.”

SK Enterprise and its workers had “taken the law into their own hands”. Olivier ordered the landlord to “restore access to water and electricity” to each resident “with immediate effect”. Because of the residents’ partial success, SK Enterprise was ordered to pay costs.