High Court orders Eskom to pay damages after child electrocuted by powerline - IOL

Eskom held liable after child electrocuted by cable near Koffiefontein.

The Free State High Court has overturned a judgment that absolved Eskom from liability after a minor 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, found that Eskom had failed to rebut a statutory presumption of negligence in terms of the Electricity Regulation Act.

The judgment, handed down electronically on September 18, 2026, upheld the appeal brought by the child's mother, who had instituted the damages claim on behalf of her son.

The court ordered Eskom to pay the child's proven or agreed damages, as well as the costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the court below.

The incident happened on February 9, 2020, when the minor was electrocuted on Rorichshoop farm, opposite Donkershoek, in the Koffiefontein municipal area.

According to the judgment, the child stepped on an electric cable lying on the ground, resulting in burns to his feet and arm.

His grandmother testified that she had frequently visited the area to collect wood and had seen low-hanging powerlines and a cable lying on the ground. She said the cable remained in that condition for more than a year and that people collecting wood kept their distance from the wires.

Photographs presented during the trial showed three powerlines hanging at relatively low levels in the area.

A central issue in the case was whether Eskom was responsible for the electrical infrastructure where the child was injured.

Eskom had cited Letsemeng Local Municipality as a third party and maintained that the relevant farm and powerlines belonged to the municipality.

However, the appeal court found that the ownership of the land was not decisive.

The court noted that Eskom powerlines cross properties belonging to private individuals, government entities and other state-owned bodies, and that the relevant question was whether the powerline was an Eskom line transmitting or distributing electricity at the location of the incident.

During cross-examination, Eskom's counsel had indicated that an Eskom employee, Mr Welthagen, would testify about photographs he had taken four days after the incident. The photographs depicted an Eskom line in the vicinity of Koffiefontein.

Welthagen was expected to testify that the line was located on municipal land, but Eskom ultimately closed its case without calling him or presenting further evidence.

The appeal court said Eskom should have presented evidence addressing the circumstances surrounding the powerline and the child's injury.

The judges found that the trial court had misdirected itself by deciding the matter against the child's mother without Eskom producing credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption.

The appeal court said that, based on the accepted evidence and Eskom's own counsel's statements, the most plausible inference was that Eskom was the applicable licensee in relation to the powerline.

The court distinguished the cases relied on by the lower court, noting that in those matters the defendants had actually testified and produced credible evidence that negligence could not be attributed to them.

The Full Court concluded that the lower court should have found in favour of the child's mother.

The appeal was upheld, with costs, including counsel's fees on scale B and the costs of the applications for leave to appeal.

The original order was set aside and replaced with an order declaring that the plaintiff had succeeded 100% on the merits.

Eskom was held liable for the child's proven or agreed damages.

The ruling does not determine the amount of damages payable. The parties had previously agreed that the damages issue would be dealt with separately if the plaintiff succeeded on the merits.