E.M and Another v Eskom Holdings Limited (39072/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 285 (17 March 2025)

E.M and Another v Eskom Holdings Limited (39072/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 285 (17 March 2025)

Section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act does not impose statutory liability on Eskom for damage caused by vandalised power lines or illegal connections. The evidence established that the fatal electrocution resulted from exposed live wires due to third-party vandalism, not Eskom's installation or maintenance. Eskom conducted regular inspections, educated the public, and had no prior reports of faults regarding the power line. The plaintiffs failed to prove that Eskom knew or should have known of the dangerous condition or that it breached its duty of care. There was no credible evidence of negligence or causal connection between Eskom's conduct and the harm suffered. Policy decisions...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 285
Parties
Plaintiff: E[...] M[...]; Plaintiff: M[...] M[...] N[...]; Defendant: Eskom Holdings Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2025
Case Number
39072/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Electricity Regulation Act, Negligence, Duty of Care, Vandalism, Foreseeability, Causal Connection
Delict Land and Property Electricity Regulation Act Negligence Duty of Care Vandalism Foreseeability Causal Connection

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E[...] M[...]

Plaintiff

M[...] M[...] N[...]

Plaintiff

Eskom Holdings Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act impose statutory liability on Eskom for damage caused by vandalised power lines?
  2. 2 Did Eskom breach its duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm from exposed electrical cables?
  3. 3 Was there credible evidence to disprove deemed negligence under section 25?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act does not impose statutory liability on Eskom for damage caused by vandalised power lines or illegal connections. The evidence established that the fatal electrocution resulted from exposed live wires due to third-party vandalism, not Eskom's installation or maintenance. Eskom conducted regular inspections, educated the public, and had no prior reports of faults regarding the power line. The plaintiffs failed to prove that Eskom knew or should have known of the dangerous condition or that it breached its duty of care. There was no credible evidence of negligence or causal connection between Eskom's conduct and the harm suffered. Policy decisions...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The action is dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the defendant's costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, on a party and party scale to be taxed or settled at scale B.