A resident of Otjiwarongo took Cenored to court over her disconnected electricity supply, and scored against the electricity supplier.

Lydia Katjita, through her lawyer Charliano Scheepers, approached the High Court on an urgent basis after Cenored disconnected her electricity supply over a disputed debt of
N438 432. 

The debt is for an alleged illegal bypass on an erf she previously owned. 

Katjita vehemently denied the allegation. After the company cut off her electricity, she approached the Electricity Control Board, which instructed Cenored to reconnect her supply, but to no avail. 

She then approached the High Court for redress, and Judge Thomas Masuku granted her a spoliation order and issued a rule nisi(interim order) calling on Cenored to show cause, if any, why the order should not be made final in the following terms: that Cenored be directed to, forthwith and before anything else, restore the applicant’s peaceful and undisturbed possession of her erf by causing electricity to be restored to the erf; interdicting and restraining Cenored from interfering or hampering and/or preventing the applicant and other occupiers from having peaceful and undisturbed possession of the erf; cost of suit was set on the scale of attorney and client. The judge made the order with immediate effect on 15 August, pending the return date of the rule nisi. 

Cenored, however, only complied with the order on 28 August, and indicated they will appeal the order. According to the power distributor, the real question is whether any person possesses electricity, as Cenored are the custodians of electricity, and enter contracts with users in accordance with the conditions of supply set by them. 

“The use of electricity and its supply by itself is contractual in nature and as such, cannot be possessed,” they argued in papers submitted by their lawyer Petrus Elago. 

The matter was supposed to be heard last Wednesday, but could not continue as the respondents did not pitch up, and the judge will decide the way forward. 

Scheepers, on the other hand, argued that several authorities exist in Namibian and South African jurisprudence that differ from the approach of Cenored. These authorities, he, clearly show that restoration of water and electricity and even solely electricity is protectable under Namibian law. 

In the current matter, Scheepers argued, the applicant deprived his client of her undisturbed and peaceful possession of electricity at her erf, and she is thus entitled to the protection of the court, and asked the court to confirm the interim order.

-rrouth@nepc.com.na