Eskom Holdings Limited v Halstead-Cleak

On 11 August 2013 the respondent, Mr Halstead-Cleak, was cycling when he came into contact with a low-hanging live electricity power line spanning a footpath. The line had been vandalised through the theft of stay rods, causing it to hang dangerously low. He sustained severe electrical burns and sued Eskom for damages. His claim relied primarily on strict liability under section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA), alternatively on delict. By agreement, the issue of Eskom’s liability under section 61 was separated for determination first. The High Court held Eskom strictly liable under the CPA, and Eskom appealed.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order declaring that Eskom is not liable to the respondent under section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent’s CPA-based claim was dismissed with costs, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for determination of the remaining issues, including delictual liability.

This judgment clarifies the scope of strict liability under section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act, confirming that it does not create general public liability for producers or suppliers. Strict liability is confined to harm suffered by persons in a consumer–supplier context. The case is significant in limiting the reach of the CPA and preventing its use to bypass ordinary delictual principles where no consumer relationship exists.