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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment