{"id":852505,"date":"2026-03-01T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-01T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/?p=852505"},"modified":"2026-02-27T17:55:35","modified_gmt":"2026-02-27T15:55:35","slug":"eskoms-monopoly-tactics-in-south-africa-exposed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/business-opinion\/852505\/eskoms-monopoly-tactics-in-south-africa-exposed\/","title":{"rendered":"Eskom’s monopoly tactics in South Africa exposed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On 18 February 2026, the Gauteng Division of the High Court delivered a judgment in the case of Sibanye Gold (Pty) Ltd & Others vs. Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Another (2026\/123) that will resonate far beyond mining boardrooms and lawyers\u2019 offices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It exposes, with judicial clarity, the ugly underbelly of a state-owned utility that has increasingly resorted to obstruction, bureaucracy and pretextual proceduralism to thwart legitimate efforts by customers to reduce reliance on Eskom supply through self-generation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In doing so, the High Court laid bare what commentators have long suspected: Eskom\u2019s conduct has been driven, at least in substantial part, by the fear of losing revenue and market control \u2013 not by genuine safety, regulatory or policy concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case \u2013 and the compelling findings of the Court \u2013 crystallise a pattern of anti-competitive conduct, bullying behaviour and resistance to structural reform that has plagued South Africa\u2019s electricity sector and left consumers and investors alike wondering whether the utility views law as an obstacle or an opportunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

A mining customer\u2019s lawful transition obstructed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Sibanye Gold, one of South Africa\u2019s largest mining companies, sought to implement a 50 MW self-generation renewable energy project designed to reduce its reliance on Eskom\u2019s grid supply. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was not a peripheral venture; it was a material investment that promised to improve energy security, reduce carbon footprint, reduce operational risk, and \u2013 crucially \u2013 lower long-term supply costs for the miner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under South African law and constitutional principles governing rights of way and servitudes, a landowner (including a customer such as Sibanye) is entitled to wayleave access across an Eskom servitude to connect generation or network assets, subject to reasonable conditions designed to protect safety and system integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eskom\u2019s response was not to engage constructively. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, it deployed its internal Wayleave Policy and application procedures as a de facto barrier regime, demanding technical documentation, safety studies, institutional approvals and a suite of escalating requirements that bore only a tenuous connection to genuine grid risk. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sibanye\u2019s legal submissions characterised Eskom\u2019s approach as a bureaucratic maze, laden with shifting criteria and unsubstantiated demands that, in reality, served to delay and deter the project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its defence, Eskom invoked a series of generic rationales \u2013 safety, network integrity and compliance with internal guidelines \u2013 all couched in procedural language. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the High Court was unimpressed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judge repeatedly probed Eskom\u2019s evidence and found that the articulated grounds were unsubstantiated, inconsistent and disjointed from the actual network risks identified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of a coherent safety case, the Court found a pattern of regulatory gaming and pretextual delay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

What the Court found<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Critically, the High Court did more than describe Eskom\u2019s conduct as procedurally problematic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It analysed Eskom\u2019s motivation and the practical effect of its conduct on Sibanye\u2019s lawful rights. In a stark finding, the Court observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n