The public protector has mediated a dispute involving an 82-year-old pensioner from Tshwane, who lost electricity worth about R10,000 after the City of Tshwane disconnected his prepaid meter without consulting him.
Lodewikus Jacobus Wolmarans lodged a complaint with the public protector on March 7 2025 alleging that his prepaid electricity meter located in the street electrical box was replaced by the functionaries of the City of Tshwane around February 28 2024 without prior notice, consultation or evidence of him tampering with it.
After enquiring at the local municipal offices, Wolmarans was informed that the meter had been tampered with, hence it recorded low power consumption.
He disputed this because no formal investigation was conducted to understand why his usage was low.
Wolmarans lives alone and often spends several weeks away from home visiting his daughter in Mossel Bay.
When the municipality replaced the meter, he had 710.5kWh units on the old meter and 2,213.4kWh units in unused vouchers. All the units were valued at R10,117.52 and were lost due to the meter replacement.
During an ADR meeting in October last year, two officials representing the city said they had no idea why Wolmarans’s electricity meter was replaced as the job card did not give reasons
In her report published on March 31, public protector Kholeka Gcaleka said despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, the city had failed to provide a satisfactory response to Wolmarans.
On September 11 2025, the public protector investigation team issued an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) notice to resolve the dispute by mediation, conciliation or negotiation.
During an ADR meeting in October last year, two officials representing the city said they had no idea why Wolmarans’s electricity meter was replaced as the job card did not give reasons.
The officials gave an undertaking to investigate the reasons for the removal of the old electricity meter.
The city then said it might be able to replace the tokens that Wolmarans had already keyed in because it was possible to detect the units on the city’s electricity system, but not the tokens that he had not yet entered into the prepaid meter.
In November last year, the investigation team received a response from Dr Ndivhoniswani Lukhwareni, the city’s group head: energy and electricity, stating the city’s energy and electricity business unit (EEBU) investigated the matter and found that the electricity prepaid meter that was removed had credit units of 710.5kWh.
Lukhwarani said the EEBU decided to reimburse the 710.5 units to Wolmarans using the new installed electricity prepaid meter.
Lukhwarani said the six additional tokens purchased from the electricity vending system, which Wolmarans was unable to upload onto the new prepaid meter, would be reimbursed when proof of purchase was presented to the City of Tshwane’s electricity vending team.
The public protector said because there was no warning, no explanation and no chance for Wolmarans to respond, disconnecting the service and replacing the meter appeared to violate the constitution’s rules for fair procedure
After sending the proof of purchase, the city confirmed these tokens were purchased and not loaded and the EEBU reimbursed Wolmarans the unused 2,213.4kWh tokens.
In her report, the public protector said the municipality disconnected Wolmarans’s electricity supply and replaced his prepaid meter without providing prior notice, consultation, or a clear and documented justification for such action.
Evidence also indicated Wolmarans was neither informed of any substantiated finding of meter tampering. He was also not afforded an opportunity to make representations prior to the decision being implemented.
The public protector said because there was no warning, no explanation and no chance for Wolmarans to respond, disconnecting the service and replacing the meter appeared to violate the constitution’s rules for fair procedure.
The public protector said while the city’s electricity supply by-laws permitted the municipality to disconnect electricity supply without prior notice where prima facie evidence of tampering existed, such a power was not unfettered. It must be exercised on the basis of objectively justifiable evidence.
“In this matter, the evidence does not establish that any prima facie proof of tampering existed at the time of disconnection.”
The public protector said notwithstanding these shortcomings, the evidence indicated that the matter was ultimately resolved through the intervention of her ADR process.
“This remedial action effectively restored the complainant’s financial position in respect of the disputed electricity units.”
She said in light of the amicable resolution of the matter, no further remedial action was required.
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.