Judicial intervention in upholding the service delivery of basic services in communities across the country has become prevalent in recent years. Our Constitution allows residents to approach a competent court and enforce their rights under the Constitution in circumstances where those rights have been infringed. Residents are seen to be adopting a more hands-on approach and taking the necessary judicial steps to improve service delivery.
In a June 2025 case, the residents brought an application against the Member of the Executive Council for Transport Safety and Liaison in the Eastern Cape (the Department) and The Superintendent General, Head of Department, Department of Transport Safety and Liaison, who is responsible for the administration of the Department. The residents sought an order which directed the Department to repair, fix, resurface and take the necessary steps to restore a main gravel road.
Prior to the application, the residents had lodged various complaints with the councillors and municipality. There concerns were not addressed. In some instances, officials appointed would leave their office at the end of their terms without taking proper steps to address the issues.
The residents argued that the road in question disrupted their daily lives, made travelling difficult especially in emergency situations where access to medical facilities was crucial. The road was described as “a rough, uneven surface pockmarked by potholes and stripped off gravel due to flood erosion, revealing a lack of maintenance and re-gravelling over years”.
The Department submitted that it is responsible for maintaining approximately 42 000 kilometres of the roads. Approximately 10% of the roads are surfaced, while about 90% are gravel roads. Within this context, the Department explained the budget limitations and costly nature of road maintenance. They had engaged with municipalities to enable them to prioritise road maintenance within communities.
The court considered the responsibilities of the respondents within the context of the Constitution, namely within the transport sector including roads, traffic management and public transport. The court found that the requirements for a mandatory interdict was met in that:
- The residents’ rights were infringed upon.
- They were caused harm by the deplorable road.
- There was no alternative remedy available as the residents had continuously approached the government entities with no recourse.
The court held that “the deplorable state of the road is a common cause fact having created a well-known crisis”. As a result, the court directed the respondents to repair, fix, resurface and take the necessary steps to restore main gravel road within 120 days from the date of the order.
The judgment serves as a reminder that the Constitution imposes obligations on government entities in relation to service delivery. Where these obligations are not met, the government entity may be faced with an application which compels them to fulfil their obligations. Often these applications follow after tireless and numerous unanswered complaints. Once relief is obtained from judicial intervention to remedy the issue, it also sets the benchmark for the future of the service delivery of the basic services.