Free State court finds Eskom liable for Koffiefontein farm cable burns

A child who stepped on a live electrical cable lying on the ground at a Free State farm will be paid damages by Eskom, after the Full Court of the Free State Division set aside a judgment that had cleared the utility.

The judgment was handed down electronically on 18 September 2026, sitting in Bloemfontein. The court upheld an appeal brought by the child’s mother, who instituted the damages claim on her son’s behalf. As IOL reported on 19 September 2026, the appeal turned on whether Eskom could answer the statutory presumption of negligence created by the Electricity Regulation Act.

The court found it could not.

What happened on the farm

The incident took place on 9 February 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 walked the area to collect wood, and that she had seen low-hanging powerlines and a cable lying on the ground. She told the court the cable stayed in that condition for more than a year, and that people collecting wood kept their distance from the wires.

Photographs placed before the court showed three powerlines hanging at relatively low levels in the area.

Where the case turned

Eskom denied responsibility for the infrastructure at the spot where the child was hurt. It cited Letsemeng Local Municipality as a third party and argued that the farm and the powerlines belonged to the municipality.

The appeal court held that ownership of the land was not the decisive question. Eskom powerlines cross property belonging to private owners, government entities and other state-owned bodies. What mattered was whether the line at the scene was an Eskom line transmitting or distributing electricity.

That question was never properly answered by the utility. During cross-examination, Eskom’s counsel indicated that an Eskom employee, Mr Welthagen, would testify about photographs he had taken four days after the incident, showing an Eskom line in the vicinity of Koffiefontein. He was expected to say the line sat on municipal land. Eskom closed its case without calling him and without leading further evidence.

The Full Court found that the trial court had misdirected itself by deciding the matter against the child’s mother while Eskom produced no credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. On the accepted evidence, and on the statements of Eskom’s own counsel, the most plausible inference was that Eskom was the applicable licensee for that powerline.

The court distinguished the cases the lower court had relied on, noting that in those matters the defendants had testified and produced credible evidence that negligence could not be laid at their door.

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 succeeded 100% on the merits, and that Eskom is liable for the child’s proven or agreed damages.

The ruling does not fix an amount. The parties had agreed earlier that the quantum would be dealt with separately if the mother succeeded on the merits, so the size of the payment is still to be determined.

Why this matters beyond one farm

Powerlines crossing farmland, municipal ground and informal settlements are a live hazard across the country, and the deaths and injuries they cause rarely reach a court at all. When they do, the Electricity Regulation Act places the burden on the licensee, which is why the missing witness mattered as much as the missing evidence.

The case also sets out plainly what a court expects of Eskom when it is sued: a witness, documents and photographs, produced in court, not an argument about who owns the ground. The utility still has the quantum fight ahead of it, and it has not said whether it will take the matter further.

For the family, the practical effect is that a claim dismissed five years after the injury has been revived, and the question of what the child is owed can now be argued on its own.

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