KEY POINTS
- Eskom was held liable for a child’s electrocution at a Free State farm.
- The court found Eskom failed to rebut the presumption of negligence.
- The amount of damages will be determined separately.
The Free State High Court has overturned a lower court ruling that cleared Eskom of liability after a child was electrocuted by an electric cable lying on the ground at a farm near Koffiefontein.
The Full Court of the Free State Division, sitting in Bloemfontein, ruled that Eskom had failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of negligence under South Africa’s Electricity Regulation Act.
The judgment, delivered electronically on September 18, 2026, upheld an appeal filed by the child’s mother, who brought the damages claim on behalf of her son.
Eskom was ordered to pay the child’s proven or agreed damages, as well as the costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the lower court.
The incident dates back to February 9, 2020, when the child was electrocuted at Rorichshoop farm, opposite Donkershoek, in the Koffiefontein municipal area.
According to evidence presented to the court, the child stepped on an electrical cable that was lying on the ground. He suffered burns to his feet and arm.
The child’s grandmother told the court that she regularly visited the area to collect firewood and had previously observed powerlines hanging at low levels. She also said a cable had remained on the ground for more than a year.
People who collected wood in the area were reportedly aware of the electrical hazards and kept their distance from the wires.
Photographs submitted during the original proceedings showed three powerlines hanging relatively close to the ground.
Eskom disputed responsibility
The central dispute before the courts was whether Eskom was responsible for the electrical infrastructure involved in the incident.
Eskom had brought Letsemeng Local Municipality into the case as a third party and argued that the relevant farm and powerlines belonged to the municipality.
The appeal court, however, found that ownership of the land was not the decisive issue.
The judges noted that Eskom’s powerlines operate across land belonging to private individuals, government institutions and other state-owned entities. What mattered was whether the line involved in the incident was an Eskom line used to transmit or distribute electricity. The appeal court also considered Eskom’s failure to call a witness who had been identified during the trial.
Eskom’s legal representative had indicated that an employee, Mr Welthagen, would testify about photographs he took four days after the incident. The photographs showed an Eskom powerline in the Koffiefontein area.
Welthagen was expected to give evidence that the line was situated on municipal land.
However, Eskom closed its case without calling him to testify or presenting additional evidence to establish who was responsible for the line and the circumstances surrounding the accident.
The appeal court found that Eskom should have provided evidence capable of addressing the circumstances of the child’s injury and the condition of the electrical infrastructure. The judges concluded that the lower court had erred in finding against the child’s mother without Eskom producing credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of negligence.
Based on the evidence accepted by the court and statements made by Eskom’s own counsel, the Full Court found that the most plausible inference was that Eskom was the relevant licensee responsible for the powerline.
The appeal court also distinguished previous cases relied upon by the lower court, noting that those matters involved defendants who had testified and provided credible evidence showing that negligence could not be attributed to them.
In this case, the court found that Eskom had not provided equivalent evidence. The Full Court upheld the mother’s appeal and set aside the original judgment.
It replaced the earlier order with a finding that the plaintiff had succeeded 100% on the merits of the case.
Eskom was therefore held liable for the child’s proven or agreed damages, in addition to the legal costs arising from the appeal and the proceedings before the lower court.
The court also awarded counsel’s fees on scale B and the costs associated with the applications for leave to appeal.
The ruling does not specify how much Eskom will ultimately have to pay. The parties had previously agreed that the amount of damages would be determined separately if the mother succeeded on the merits.
The latest judgment therefore settles the question of liability, but the financial compensation due to the child remains to be determined or agreed.
