Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others

Eskom supplied bulk electricity to the Walter Sisulu Local Municipality, which accrued arrears exceeding R100 million. To compel payment, Eskom implemented intermittent electricity supply interruptions in the municipality’s area between July 2017 and January 2018. Pioneer Foods, operating a maize mill within the municipality, was adversely affected. After unsuccessful engagements with Eskom, Pioneer obtained urgent interim relief preventing a specific interruption and then sought, in Part B of its application, judicial review and setting aside of Eskom’s decisions. Pioneer alleged that Eskom lacked authority to interrupt supply solely to coerce payment and that Eskom failed to comply with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). The High Court dismissed the review, upholding Eskom’s defences that Pioneer lacked locus standi, that the application was premature due to failure to approach NERSA under s 30 of the Electricity Regulation Act (ERA), and that Eskom was empowered by s 21(5) of the ERA to interrupt supply. Pioneer appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as moot in terms of s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, with no order as to costs.

The case reaffirms the doctrine of mootness in South African appellate practice and illustrates the SCA’s approach to declining adjudication where issues have been overtaken by events and settled by precedent. It confirms the authoritative effect of the Resilient judgment on Eskom’s statutory powers, the non-applicability of s 30 of the ERA as a PAJA internal remedy in similar contexts, and underscores the importance of practical effect as a threshold requirement for appellate adjudication.