Editorial illustration of municipal electricity billing, not an actual scene.

Nersa has conceded in the Pretoria High Court that five municipalities’ 2025/26 electricity tariffs were unlawfully approved, according to Moneyweb’s report published on 11 November.

They are Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni, Nelson Mandela Bay, Emfuleni and Madibeng. Moneyweb reports that faulty application figures were approved without checking.

For customers, the important distinction is between establishing that a tariff approval was wrong and deciding who receives a credit, how much it covers and when it arrives.

The fight has moved to the remedy

Moneyweb reports that Judge RG Tolmay is considering remedies, with independent expertise and closer court supervision among the possibilities.

According to Moneyweb, Ekurhuleni argued that it could not afford refunds. Mpact proposed limiting adjustments to the parties before the court. Nersa favoured corrections for all affected consumers, phased over future years to avoid sudden price shocks.

Moneyweb’s 11 November report said the hearing was continuing and did not identify a final refund timetable. Customers cannot yet assume an account-specific entitlement.

Why a high bill is not the whole legal test

The Electricity Regulation Act’s tariff principles require an efficient supplier to be able to recover its costs and earn a reasonable return proportionate to risk. They also require Nersa to avoid undue discrimination between customer categories and allow cross-subsidies for some groups.

That means the issue is more specific than whether electricity feels expensive. The underlying costs, customer categories and regulatory approval matter. A lawful correction need not be the same percentage for a factory, a shop and a household.

An older dispute shows why timing matters

The separate 2024/25 tariff litigation involved Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni, Madibeng and Msunduzi. It provides context, rather than a shortcut to calculating a refund in the current case.

In July reporting by Moneyweb, republished by The Citizen, Johannesburg was seeking court protection after Nersa missed a deadline to recalculate those earlier tariffs. The city warned that refund demands could disrupt its budget and services. That history explains why the mechanism for carrying out a court decision matters as much as the headline.

What electricity users should watch next

SBL analysis: A useful outcome will need to answer three practical questions: which accounts qualify, whether they were overcharged and how any adjustment would be calculated and delivered. A future tariff reduction and a credit against past purchases can have very different cash-flow effects for a business.

Customers should keep their bills, tariff-category details and payment records. This report is not a basis to stop paying or deduct a self-calculated refund. Any account-specific claim needs the applicable court order and appropriate advice.

The next meaningful development is a remedy with an enforceable calculation and timetable. Until then, the concession is significant, but money back remains a question rather than a promise.

Reporting note: SBL has not independently obtained the latest court papers. Current proceedings are attributed to Moneyweb. The July report is historical context.

Related reading: What the minister’s separate electricity-relief promise does, and does not, tell households.

KEEP READING