Botha and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd; Van Zyl and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (3878/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 45; 2024 (2) SA 322 (FB) (15 February 2023)

Botha and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd; Van Zyl and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (3878/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 45; 2024 (2) SA 322 (FB) (15 February 2023)

The court held that Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd is not an organ of state to which the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 applies. The Act's definition of organ of state is narrower than the constitutional definition and does not include entities exercising public functions in terms of legislation other than the Constitution. Eskom performs its functions under specific statutes, not under the Constitution, and is not listed in the Act or its schedule. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not required to give statutory notice to Eskom before instituting proceedings for damages. The special pleas raised by Eskom were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 45
Parties
Plaintiff: Louis Johannes Botha; Plaintiff: Hendrik Francois Naude; Plaintiff: Wesdan Boerderye (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Goueveld Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Christoffel Petrus Scheepers; Plaintiff: M. Van Zyl; Plaintiff: T. Janse Van Rensburg; Plaintiff: Lena Hoender Boerdery (Edms) Bpk; Plaintiff: C. A. Boshoff; Plaintiff: L. M. Swart; Plaintiff: Early Light Trading 130 (Edms) Bpk; Plaintiff: P. H. Ferreira; Plaintiff: Thalwi Boerdery Bpk; Plaintiff: P. J. Meyer; Plaintiff: Prinsto Investments BK; Plaintiff: Die Human Trust; Plaintiff: J. A. Barnard; Plaintiff: Whitfield Wege Boerdery (Edms) Bpk; Plaintiff: N. Van Jaarsveldt; Plaintiff: Diablo Trading 221 (Edms) Bpk; Plaintiff: H. J. Human; Plaintiff: R. Van Biljon; Defendant: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Case Number
3878/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Special Plea Regarding Statutory Notice Requirement
Outcome
Special pleas dismissed. Costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Judges
P. J. Loubser
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State, Statutory Notice Requirement, Definition of Organ of State, Constitutional Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Johannes Botha

Plaintiff

Hendrik Francois Naude

Plaintiff

Wesdan Boerderye (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Goueveld Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Christoffel Petrus Scheepers

Plaintiff

M. Van Zyl

Plaintiff

T. Janse Van Rensburg

Plaintiff

Lena Hoender Boerdery (Edms) Bpk

Plaintiff

C. A. Boshoff

Plaintiff

L. M. Swart

Plaintiff

Early Light Trading 130 (Edms) Bpk

Plaintiff

P. H. Ferreira

Plaintiff

Thalwi Boerdery Bpk

Plaintiff

P. J. Meyer

Plaintiff

Prinsto Investments BK

Plaintiff

Die Human Trust

Plaintiff

J. A. Barnard

Plaintiff

Whitfield Wege Boerdery (Edms) Bpk

Plaintiff

N. Van Jaarsveldt

Plaintiff

Diablo Trading 221 (Edms) Bpk

Plaintiff

H. J. Human

Plaintiff

R. Van Biljon

Plaintiff

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Special Plea Regarding Statutory Notice Requirement

  1. 1 Whether Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd is an organ of state to which the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 applies.
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs were required to give statutory notice to Eskom before instituting legal proceedings for damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd is not an organ of state to which the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 applies. The Act's definition of organ of state is narrower than the constitutional definition and does not include entities exercising public functions in terms of legislation other than the Constitution. Eskom performs its functions under specific statutes, not under the Constitution, and is not listed in the Act or its schedule. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not required to give statutory notice to Eskom before instituting proceedings for damages. The special pleas raised by Eskom were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the...

Court Disposition

Special pleas dismissed. Costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The special pleas are dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs’ costs in the various actions in relation to the special pleas, inclusive of the costs of the plaintiffs employing senior counsel.