Eskom Holdings Limited v Halstead-Cleak (599/2015) [2016] ZASCA 150; 2017 (1) SA 333 (SCA) (30 September 2016)

Eskom Holdings Limited v Halstead-Cleak (599/2015) [2016] ZASCA 150; 2017 (1) SA 333 (SCA) (30 September 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act does not create strict liability for Eskom in the absence of a supplier-consumer relationship. The respondent was not a consumer vis-à-vis Eskom, as he had not entered into any transaction with Eskom nor was he utilising or benefiting from the electricity at the time of the incident. The harm suffered did not arise from the supply of unsafe goods, product failure, defect, or hazard as contemplated by the Act. The purpose and definitions within the Act make clear that its protection is limited to consumers and transactions within the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, Eskom cannot be held strictly liable...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 150
Parties
Appellant: Eskom Holdings Limited; Respondent: Derek Anthony Halstead-Cleak
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2016
Case Number
599/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court (pretoria); Judgment on Liability Under S 61 of the Consumer Protection Act
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Eskom not strictly liable under section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act; respondent's claim under the Act dismissed; action remitted for determination of remaining issues.
Judges
Lewis, Willis, Schoeman, Fourie, Makgoka
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Strict Liability, Statutory Interpretation, Supplier Consumer Relationship
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Strict Liability Statutory Interpretation Supplier Consumer Relationship

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom Holdings Limited

Appellant

Derek Anthony Halstead-Cleak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court (pretoria); Judgment on Liability Under S 61 of the Consumer Protection Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eskom Holdings Limited can be held strictly liable under section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 for harm caused to the respondent by a low hanging power line.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent qualifies as a 'consumer' vis-à-vis Eskom for the purposes of section 61 of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the harm suffered falls within the ambit of strict liability under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act does not create strict liability for Eskom in the absence of a supplier-consumer relationship. The respondent was not a consumer vis-à-vis Eskom, as he had not entered into any transaction with Eskom nor was he utilising or benefiting from the electricity at the time of the incident. The harm suffered did not arise from the supply of unsafe goods, product failure, defect, or hazard as contemplated by the Act. The purpose and definitions within the Act make clear that its protection is limited to consumers and transactions within the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, Eskom cannot be held strictly liable...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Eskom not strictly liable under section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act; respondent's claim under the Act dismissed; action remitted for determination of remaining issues.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court below is replaced with: (a) The defendant is not liable to the plaintiff in terms of section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. (b) The plaintiff’s claim based on those provisions is dismissed with costs, including costs of the pre-trial conference of 19 February 2015 and the trial...