Hove v Harare City (HH 205/16 HC 1728/15) [2016] ZWHHC 205 (23 March 2016);
1
HH 205/16
HC 1728/15
TINOFARA KUDAKWASHE HOVE
versus
CITY OF HARARE
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MUREMBA J
HARARE, 19 January 2016 and 23 March 2016
Opposed Application
E Matsanura, for the applicant
C Kwaramba, for the respondent
This was an application to interdict the respondent from disconnecting water supplies from the applicant’s property without a court order and from charging commercial rates for the use of water from the said property.
The applicant submitted that the respondent was infringing on their right to water as provided in s 77(a) of the constitution. In interpreting the right to water, the court found that the right empowers local authorities to levy rates to raise revenue for service provision and does not prohibit disconnections of water services for non-payment. Additionally, the court held that the right to water contains the protection against arbitrary and illegal disconnections. Consequently, when a bill is genuinely disputed there should be recourse to the court before disconnection as per s 69 (3) of the constitution and the holding in Mushoriwa v City of Harare HH 195/14.
The court held that the applicant had proved his right to water but failed to prove the genuineness of his claim, since he did not provide proof letters of complaint disputing the bills. This also had a negative bearing on the grant of the interdict order.
The court also found that the applicant converted domestic premises for use as commercial premises and was not entitled to be charged domestic rates.
The court also noted that the applicant failed to give adequate information which would show that the respondent did not follow the correct procedure in zoning and rating it.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.