JOHANNESBURG – A South African high court has dealt a blow to state-owned power utility Eskom, setting aside its refusal to grant Sibanye-Stillwater a wayleave application for a 50MW solar power plant. The ruling, delivered by Adams J on February 18, 2026, and noted by Eskom on February 25, 2026, centers on a proposed photovoltaic (PV) facility intended to supply electricity to Sibanye’s Kloof Mine. The court’s decision underscores growing tensions between Eskom and private sector efforts to bolster South Africa’s energy supply amid ongoing power shortages.
The dispute revolved around Sibanye’s plan to connect the solar plant to a section of the Kloof substation, which is owned and operated by the mining company, via a six-kilometer power line. This line would cross Eskom’s 132kV distribution lines, necessitating Eskom’s consent due to existing servitudes over the property. Eskom initially declined the application, citing safety concerns and its statutory obligations, but Sibanye challenged that refusal in court, launching a review application under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).
The High Court ultimately sided with Sibanye-Stillwater, finding in favor of the mining company’s application. While Eskom maintains its intention was to facilitate the application while ensuring regulatory compliance and network safety, the court evidently disagreed with the rationale behind the denial. Eskom is now studying the judgment and its implications, and has indicated it will consult with its legal advisors to determine the appropriate next steps, remaining within the legal timeframe to appeal the decision. Eskom released a statement acknowledging the ruling on Wednesday, February 25, 2026.
The Core of the Dispute: Safety vs. Energy Independence
At the heart of the legal battle were differing interpretations of risk and the balance between Eskom’s responsibilities and the require for diversified energy sources. Eskom argued that allowing the connection posed potential safety risks to its national network. However, Sibanye-Stillwater contended that these concerns were not adequately justified and that the project represented a crucial step towards reducing its reliance on Eskom’s often-unreliable grid. The court’s decision suggests it found Eskom’s concerns to be insufficient grounds for refusing the application.
The case highlights a broader struggle within South Africa’s energy sector. Eskom, burdened by debt and aging infrastructure, has struggled to meet the country’s electricity demands, leading to frequent load shedding – planned power outages – that disrupt businesses and daily life. Private companies, like Sibanye-Stillwater, are increasingly looking to renewable energy sources to mitigate the impact of these outages and enhance their operational resilience. This push for energy independence is often met with resistance from Eskom, which maintains control over the national grid and has, at times, been accused of hindering private sector energy projects. MyBroadband reported on the implications of the ruling, suggesting it exposes what some see as an unwillingness within Eskom to embrace private sector solutions.
‘Ulterior Motives’ Allegations and Eskom’s Response
The court reportedly questioned Eskom’s motives in denying the wayleave application, with some interpretations suggesting the utility may have been acting to protect its market share. While the full details of the court’s reasoning are still being analyzed, the implication is that Eskom’s decision wasn’t solely based on technical or safety considerations. News24 reported that the court “slammed Eskom’s ‘ulterior motives’”.
Eskom, however, firmly denies any such allegations. In its statement, the utility reiterated its commitment to facilitating legitimate wayleave applications while upholding its responsibilities to maintain the stability and safety of the national grid. The company emphasized that all concerns regarding the Sibanye-Stillwater project were communicated to the mining company as part of the reasons for the initial refusal. Sunday World also covered Eskom’s response to the judgement.
What’s Next for Sibanye and Eskom?
The immediate outcome of the court’s decision is that Sibanye-Stillwater is now legally entitled to proceed with the construction of its 50MW solar power plant and connect it to the Kloof substation. However, the path forward isn’t necessarily clear-cut. Eskom retains the right to appeal the ruling, and the utility has stated it is currently evaluating its options.
Should Eskom choose not to appeal, or if an appeal is unsuccessful, the project can move forward, potentially providing a more reliable and sustainable energy source for the Kloof Mine. More broadly, the case sets a precedent for future wayleave applications and could encourage other companies to challenge Eskom’s decisions if they believe they are being unfairly denied access to the grid. The ruling is likely to fuel further debate about the role of private sector participation in South Africa’s energy transition and the need for a more streamlined and transparent process for approving renewable energy projects.
Eskom is expected to announce its decision regarding a potential appeal within the coming weeks. Stakeholders will be closely watching to see how the utility responds to this significant legal setback and what impact it will have on the future of energy development in South Africa.
Disclaimer: This article provides information for general knowledge and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal or financial advice.
What are your thoughts on the court’s decision? Share your comments below and let us know how you think this ruling will impact South Africa’s energy future.
Worth a look
