GEORGE NEWS - In a significant ruling delivered electronically on Thursday 20 March, Judge CN Nziweni of the Western Cape High Court granted an interim interdict prohibiting Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and the National Transmission Company of South Africa from proceeding with any expropriation processes over two properties in George, pending a broader review application.
The decision stems from a dispute over the construction of transmission powerlines in the Southern Cape, pitting property owners Platinum Mile Inv. 442 (Pty) Ltd and the trustees of the Armstrong Flora Trust against multiple state entities and Eskom.
The case involves Portion 7 and Portion 46 of Farm Geelhoutboom No. 217 in the rural area just outside George, where Eskom plans to erect overhead transmission lines as part of a long-standing project to bolster electricity infrastructure.
The applicants sought urgent relief to suspend any steps toward expropriation until a review determines the legality of the environmental authorisation process that gave the project the green light.
Background to the dispute
Eskom’s initiative to build two transmission lines - one from Mossel Bay (Gourikwa substation) to George (Blanco substation) and another from George to Beaufort West (Droërivier substation) - began in 2015. Initial environmental investigations lapsed in December 2016, prompting fresh applications in January 2017.
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment issued environmental authorisations (EAs) in November 2017, extended in August 2022 to remain valid for 10 years.
The applicants, however, claim they were blindsided by the process. Platinum Mile only learned of the EAs on 26 March 2024, while the Armstrong Flora Trust discovered them in late June 2024, following negotiations initiated by Eskom consultant Mr Grunewald.
The property owners allege they were never notified of the public participation process (PPP) mandated by the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), rendering the authorisations flawed and unlawful.
The court’s findings
Nziweni’s judgment centered on whether the applicants met the four requirements for an interim interdict: a prima facie right, a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, a balance of convenience favouring the applicants, and the absence of an alternative remedy.
The court found that the applicants’ property rights established a clear prima facie right, noting their entitlement to challenge a project impacting their land. On the question of harm, the applicants argued that ongoing negotiations by Eskom, represented by Grunewald, carried a “looming threat of expropriation” if they refused to grant servitudes voluntarily.
The judge agreed, citing the Electricity Regulation Act, which positions negotiations as a precursor to potential expropriation, and concluded that continuing the process without review could lead to irreversible harm.
Weighing the balance of convenience, Nziweni acknowledged Eskom’s critical role in addressing South Africa’s electricity crisis but found no evidence that halting negotiations would jeopardise public safety.
In contrast, the applicants faced significant harm without alternative mitigation options. Finally, the court dismissed the respondents’ suggestion of an expedited review as inadequate, emphasising that monetary damages could not remedy the potential loss of property rights.
Respondents’ defense
Eskom and the state respondents, including the Chief Director, Director-General, and Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, opposed the interdict. They argued that notices were sent to Platinum Mile in 2015, a claim disputed by the applicants’ counsel, Adv J Du Toit SC, who insisted they did not comply with legal standards.
The respondents further denied that Grunewald’s negotiations involved expropriation, asserting his role was limited to securing servitudes. Adv R Jaga SC, for Eskom, contended that the interdict was premature and unnecessary, but the court rejected these arguments as insufficient to override the applicants’ concerns.
Order and implications
The court ordered Eskom and the National Transmission Company to refrain from any expropriation steps over the disputed properties until the review in Part B is finalised.
Costs were awarded against them on Scale C, signaling a financial rebuke for their stance.
This ruling temporarily stalls Eskom’s plans, spotlighting procedural transparency in infrastructure projects. The forthcoming review in Part B of the application will scrutinise whether Eskom and its consultants adhered to Nema’s public participation requirements - a decision that could set a precedent for landowner rights in South Africa’s energy expansion efforts.
For now, the properties remain shielded, as the legal battle shifts to the broader legitimacy of the environmental authorisations granted nearly eight years ago.
(This report was compiled from the court ruling document with the help of AI.)
‘We bring you the latest Garden Route, Hessequa, Karoo news’
