Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd and Another v Sonae Arauco (Pty) Ltd (1018/2023) [2024] ZASCA 177; 2025 (3) SA 78 (SCA) (18 December 2024)

Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd and Another v Sonae Arauco (Pty) Ltd (1018/2023) [2024] ZASCA 177; 2025 (3) SA 78 (SCA) (18 December 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the curtailment agreement between Sonae and the municipality was not valid or enforceable, as it was not in writing and did not comply with the statutory requirements of the NRS048-9: 2019 Code of Practice. Sonae failed to demonstrate that its factory used 80% of the substation's supply or that the agreement met the Code's formalities. Eskom was not a party to the agreement and was statutorily obliged to assume responsibility for loadshedding when the municipality failed to comply with load reduction instructions. The Codes bind all parties and mandate Eskom to protect the grid, overriding any informal arrangements. The High Court erred in granting...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 177
Parties
Appellant: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd; Appellant: Mbombela Municipality; Respondent: Sonae Arauco (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Case Number
1018/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Interdict Granted by High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside.
Judges
Mbatha, Weiner, Smith, Molopa-Sethosa, Koen
Legal Topics
Electricity Regulation Act, Loadshedding, Interim Interdict, Municipal Powers, Statutory Obligations
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Electricity Regulation Act Loadshedding Interim Interdict Municipal Powers Statutory Obligations

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Appellant

Mbombela Municipality

Appellant

Sonae Arauco (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Interdict Granted by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eskom and the municipality were lawfully interdicted from implementing loadshedding at Sonae's factory.
  2. 2 Whether the curtailment agreement between Sonae and the municipality was valid and enforceable.
  3. 3 Whether Eskom was obliged to assume responsibility for loadshedding when the municipality failed to comply with statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the curtailment agreement between Sonae and the municipality was not valid or enforceable, as it was not in writing and did not comply with the statutory requirements of the NRS048-9: 2019 Code of Practice. Sonae failed to demonstrate that its factory used 80% of the substation's supply or that the agreement met the Code's formalities. Eskom was not a party to the agreement and was statutorily obliged to assume responsibility for loadshedding when the municipality failed to comply with load reduction instructions. The Codes bind all parties and mandate Eskom to protect the grid, overriding any informal arrangements. The High Court erred in granting...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
  • The order of the High Court is set aside and replaced with: 'The application for interim relief in terms of Part A of the notice of motion is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.'