On 8 October 2009, the Constitutional Court of South Africa handed down judgment in Mazibuko and others v City of Johannesburg and Others. The five year battle, which was heard by the Court on 2 and 3 September 2009, dealt with the right of access to water. It was initiated by five poor residents of Phiri, a township in Soweto. The residents were represented by the Centre of Applied Legal Studies.

After careful consideration of the issues, the Court held that the City of Johannesburg's (City) Free Basic Water Policy fell within the bounds of reasonableness and was therefore not in conflict with section 27 of the Constitution or with national legislation regulating water services. Furthermore, the Court held that the installation of the pre-paid water meters in Phiri were lawful.

The Court said that the City accepted that it had a continuing obligation to progressively achieve the right of access to sufficient water but that ‘it is implicit in the concept of progressive realisation that it will take time before everyone has access to sufficient water.'

The residents had asked the City to provide them and others similarly situated with 50 litres of free water per person per day. The applicants had also asked the City for the option of water credit which is afforded to the wealthier and largely white residents of Johannesburg who get water on credit, and do not have pre-paid water meters.

The matter was launched in the South Gauteng High Court in 2006. It was heard in December 2007 and judgment was handed down in April 2008. The High Court ordered that each person in a household should receive 50 litres of free water per day and that the pre-paid water meters were unconstitutional.

The City then appealed the decision of the High Court and the matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in February 2009. The SCA found that the right to sufficient water in section 27 of the Constitution must be interpreted to mean ‘the quantity of water required for dignified human existence', which is 42 litres per person per day. However, like the High Court, the SCA also concluded that the pre-paid water meters were unconstitutional.

The Legal Resources Centre represented the Centre on Housing and Evictions (COHRE), who intervened as amicus curiae in the High Court, the SCA and the Constitutional Court.

COHRE argued that the residents and others similarly situated should receive 50 litres of free water per person per day. This argument was supported by international and foreign law in relation to the right to water. Furthermore COHRE argued, also on the basis of international and foreign law, that the introduction of pre-paid water meters by the City was unconstitutional in that it infringed the rights of residents and others similarly situated to sufficient water, gender and racial equality, health and dignity.