Mlonyeni v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (2323/23) [2025] ZAECMHC 70 (31 July 2025)

Mlonyeni v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (2323/23) [2025] ZAECMHC 70 (31 July 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that the defendant failed to maintain the electric meter box, display warning signs, or take reasonable steps to prevent harm. Technical reports indicated that the cause of the fire was unknown and that the integrity of the meter box and cables was maintained. The presumption of negligence under section 25 of the Electrical Regulation Act was rebutted by credible evidence. The plaintiff's version was not supported by sufficient detail or corroboration, and the contradictions in the defendant's evidence were...

Citation
[2025] ZAECMHC 70
Parties
Plaintiff: Nozukile Mlonyeni; Defendant: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2025
Case Number
2323/23
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Cengani-Mbakaza
Legal Topics
Negligence, Electrical Infrastructure Liability, Burden of Proof, Mutually Destructive Versions
Delict Land and Property Negligence Electrical Infrastructure Liability Burden of Proof Mutually Destructive Versions

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nozukile Mlonyeni

Plaintiff

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining and inspecting the electric meter box and related infrastructure.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to the plaintiff's property.
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of negligence under section 25 of the Electrical Regulation Act 4 of 2005 was rebutted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that the defendant failed to maintain the electric meter box, display warning signs, or take reasonable steps to prevent harm. Technical reports indicated that the cause of the fire was unknown and that the integrity of the meter box and cables was maintained. The presumption of negligence under section 25 of the Electrical Regulation Act was rebutted by credible evidence. The plaintiff's version was not supported by sufficient detail or corroboration, and the contradictions in the defendant's evidence were...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
  • Each party shall pay its own costs.