Msomi v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (8650/2016) [2019] ZAKZPHC 82 (13 June 2019)

Msomi v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (8650/2016) [2019] ZAKZPHC 82 (13 June 2019)

The court found that the cable which caused the plaintiff's injury was not supplied or installed by Eskom, but was part of an illegal connection erected by third parties to steal electricity. Eskom's annual inspection regime complied with legal requirements, and the defendant faced significant threats and violence when attempting to remove illegal connections. The court held that Eskom could not reasonably foresee the danger posed by the illegal cable, as it was unaware of its existence until the incident occurred and no prior reports or incidents had alerted Eskom to the risk. Section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act does not apply to illegal connections made by third parties, and...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZPHC 82
Parties
Plaintiff: Lindokuhle Eugene Msomi; Defendant: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2019
Case Number
8650/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial Proceeded on Liability Only
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gyanda
Legal Topics
Negligence, Electricity Regulation Act, Illegal Electricity Connections, Duty of Care
Delict Land and Property Negligence Electricity Regulation Act Illegal Electricity Connections Duty of Care

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lindokuhle Eugene Msomi

Plaintiff

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial Proceeded on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant, Eskom Holdings SOC Limited, is liable for damages arising from injuries sustained by the plaintiff due to contact with an overhead electric cable.
  2. 2 Whether Section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006 applies to the facts, creating a presumption of negligence against Eskom.
  3. 3 Whether Eskom owed a duty of care to prevent injury from illegal electricity connections in the area.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the cable which caused the plaintiff's injury was not supplied or installed by Eskom, but was part of an illegal connection erected by third parties to steal electricity. Eskom's annual inspection regime complied with legal requirements, and the defendant faced significant threats and violence when attempting to remove illegal connections. The court held that Eskom could not reasonably foresee the danger posed by the illegal cable, as it was unaware of its existence until the incident occurred and no prior reports or incidents had alerted Eskom to the risk. Section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act does not apply to illegal connections made by third parties, and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.