Free State court finds Eskom liable for child's electrocution near Koffiefontein

The Full Court of the Free State Division has found Eskom liable for damages after a child was electrocuted by a live cable lying on the ground on a farm near Koffiefontein, overturning an earlier judgment that had dismissed the claim.

As IOL reported on September 21, the judgment was handed down electronically on September 18, 2026. The appeal was brought by the child’s mother on his behalf.

The incident happened on February 9, 2020, on Rorichshoop farm, opposite Donkershoek, in the Koffiefontein municipal area. The child stepped on an electric cable lying on the ground and suffered burns to his feet and arm.

His grandmother testified that she had often 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 shown during the trial depicted three powerlines hanging at relatively low levels in the area.

What the court decided

A central issue 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 farm and the powerlines belonged to the municipality.

The appeal court found that ownership of the land was not decisive. Eskom powerlines cross properties belonging to private individuals, government entities and other state-owned bodies, the court noted, and 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 indicated that an Eskom employee would testify about photographs he had taken four days after the incident, which depicted an Eskom line in the vicinity of Koffiefontein. The employee was expected to say the line was on municipal land. Eskom closed its case without calling him or presenting further evidence.

The appeal court said Eskom should have presented evidence on the circumstances surrounding the powerline and the child’s injury. It 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 of negligence under the Electricity Regulation Act.

On the accepted evidence and Eskom’s own counsel’s statements, the most plausible inference was that Eskom was the applicable licensee for the powerline, the court said. It distinguished the cases relied on by the lower court, noting that in those matters the defendants had testified and produced credible evidence that negligence could not be attributed to them.

What the order says

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 fix the amount. The parties had previously agreed that the damages issue would be dealt with separately if the plaintiff succeeded on the merits.

Source: IOL, High Court orders Eskom to pay damages after child electrocuted by powerline