Court orders Masisi’s sister & Co to ‘unlock’ water supply
Innocent Selatlhwa | Monday August 4, 2025 06:00
The JV had, in protest, locked up chambers for the project termed Goodhope District water supply Scheme 2.2. awarded for P549.6 million.
WUC, through attorneys, Otto Itumeleng Law Chambers, had dragged the JV (first respondent) and the project manager, Kelebogile Monnaatshipi (second respondent), before the court after the contractor shut down the water supply to some villages in the Borolong area by shutting and putting padlocks on 15 chambers supplying water to 15 villages in the area.
The commencement date for the project was the 24th of May 2022, while the completion date was the 23rd of November 2023. The end of the defects liability period was the 23rd of November 2024. According to the founding affidavit by WUC’s corporation secretary Felicity Ziga, after the project commenced, a decision was taken between the parties that due to the acute water shortage in the villages of Ditlharapa, Molete, and Mokatako, there must be an early beneficiation connection to the pipeline which was being constructed by the JV.
She stated that under the early beneficiation from the project, a borehole situated at Ditlharapa would be connected to the pipeline to supply water to the villages that had an acute water shortage. Ziga also said, before the project that was awarded to the JV, the villages of Ditlharapa and Molete were supplied with water by the corporation from a borehole owned by the corporation situated at Ditlharapa village. At Mokatako village, the Corporation delivered water on water tanker trucks from Lobatse.
Furthermore, she stated that there was a handover of the section pipeline between the villages of Ditlharapa and Mokatako and that a certificate of handover was issued.
“I verily aver that since the issuing of the taking over certificates for the Ditlharapa - Mokatako pipeline section, which certificate was signed on behalf of the JV by one Nginani Mbayi, WUC took possession and control of the pipeline section for its use and benefit of the residents of Ditlharapa, Molete, and Mokatako. By taking such possession, WUC and its employees had unlimited access to the chambers and supplied water to residents through such possession and access to the chambers,” she stated.
She also stated that she was informed by one Keoagile Thomas, who is an employee of the corporation that on the 10th of July 2025, he realised that there was no water supply to the village of Mokatako and upon visiting the chamber to inspect what could be the problem, he realised that chambers which were handed to the corporation were locked with padlocks. This was after they were inundated with several calls and enquiries from residents of Mokatako and the local authorities that their taps were dry.
These, she said, included chambers that were handed over to the corporation, and which the corporation enjoyed peaceful possession and control. “Shocked and dismayed by this discovery and scale of the problem, I then addressed a letter to the JV on the 14th of July 2025, instructing them to unlock the chambers. In my letter, I indicated to the JV that its action of locking the chambers is inhibiting the Corporation from supplying water to the villages of Ditlharapa, Molete, and Mokatako. The letter further reminded the 1st Respondent that their actions are contrary to the Waterworks Act and border on a criminal activity to deny the public water. The letter requested the JV to unlock the chambers, failing which the Corporation will approach the court for redress,” she further stated.
In response to the mentioned letter, the JV, through Monnaatshipi, expressed that they had locked up the water supply in protest as they felt WUC was dealing in bad faith. Monnaatshipi said they were deeply concerned by the threatening and unilateral tone of the correspondence, stating it neither conforms to the governing FIDIC Conditions of Contract (1999 Yellow Book) nor accurately reflects the status of the project.
“The infrastructure identified under Project Ref: WUC 14/273 has not been completed, certified, or formally handed over to the corporation in terms of Sub-Clause 10.1 [Taking Over of the Works]. No taking-over certificate has been issued, and as such, the works remain under the care and control of the Contractor. The corporation has not fulfilled the preconditions necessary to assume possession or operation of the infrastructure,” Monnaatshipi stated.
Further, Monnaatshipi said the project had stalled primarily because the corporation had failed to appoint a qualified engineer, contrary to sub-Clause 3.1. “This procedural failure undermines contract administration and has prevented the issuance of valid instructions, determinations, and payment certifications and that is what you had ample time to rectify to ensure you benefit from the amenities, but you chose to ignore same and you respond as if there is some urgency,” he wrote, adding that the matter was formally raised by the Contractor in their letter dated 6 May 2025, yet to date, the Corporation has not regularised this critical contractual obligation.
WUC had sought and was granted a rule nisi calling upon them to show cause why an order should not be made in the following terms; Directing that the actions of the JV and Monnaatshipi to lock out and deny WUC and its employees' entry and access to the chambers to the water tanks for the supply of water to the villages of Ditlharapa, Molete and Mokatako villages, constitutes an act of spoliation, alternatively an act of self-help and therefore null and void: ordering and directing the respondents to immediately and forthwith restore the status quo ante before its unlawful actions concerning access to the chambers for the supply of water to the afore stated villages; restraining the respondents from locking access to the chambers to the water tanks and resorting to self-help with respect to the water supply to Ditlharapa, Molete, and Mokatako, and any other chamber which is in the possession, custody, and use of the Applicant herein and used for purposes of water supply to any village, including the villages of Rakhuna, Ngwatsau, Ramatlabana, Makokwe, Papatlo, Matasalalo,
Borobadilepe, Hebron, Logagane, Phihetswane, and Marojane. Alternatively, an interim interdict was granted interdicting the respondents from locking out the applicant and its employees from accessing the chambers at the water tanks and thereby cutting off the water supply to the villages to Ditlharapa, Molete and Mokatako or any other village pending the institution and finalisation of a dispute to the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) in terms of the parties dispute resolution mechanism.
While the matter stands, the JV was directed to show cause, if any, why the Orders set out above cannot be made final with a return date yet to be set for the matter. The Respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the application on attorney and own client scale, with one paying the other in order to be absolved.