This judgment dealt with a claim by a consumer whose water supply was discontinued by the municipality after a dispute arose as to the amount owing. The Court ordered reconnection of the water supply, holding that the right to water supply is based on the agreement that a consumer enters into with the municipal provider as well as on the provisions of the Constitution that acknowledges water supply as a basic right. As such, interference with this right where, for example, a municipality cuts off water supply, must comply with the provisions of the Water Act (which gives effect to the constitutional right to water), requiring any limitation or discontinuation of water services to be 'fair and equitable'. In the absence of any proof that the municipality attempted to deal with the dispute in terms of its own dispute resolution procedures, it could not without more discontinue the water supply.