Diesel refund scheme overhauled; Eskom's s 25 presumption left unrebutted

Government Gazette 55406 publishes SARS Notice R.7921 (DAR280), which substantially restructures the diesel refund scheme under sections 75 and 120 of the Customs and Excise Act. The new rules introduce mandatory electronic registration via eFiling or BFE capturing for sellers of petroleum products, a diesel refund relationship management system requiring disclosure of counterparty relationships, and a strict 7-working-day window for counterparties to confirm or reject disclosed relationships (failing which the disclosure becomes ineffective). Sellers must keep records for five years and update registration profiles within 30 days of any change. The transitional arrangement (rule 75.25.05D) takes immediate effect on 18 September 2026, allowing pre-registration before the balance of the new scheme commences on a date to be set by the Commissioner. The same gazette publishes draft NCC Guidelines (R.7922) on product descriptions, labelling, sales records and price disclosure under the Consumer Protection Act, open for 45-day public comment (deadline approximately 2 November 2026).

A child was injured by electricity from a powerline near Koffiefontein. The plaintiff sued Eskom under section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006, which deems injury caused by electricity generated, transmitted or distributed by a licensee to have been caused by the licensee's negligence unless credible contrary evidence is produced. The trial court granted absolution from the instance, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove ownership of the land or maintenance responsibility for the line.

The court held: The Full Court upheld the appeal. It held that Eskom's admission of licensee status, combined with its counsel's express identification of the powerline as an Eskom line, was sufficient to trigger the s 25 presumption of negligence. Land ownership is irrelevant — Eskom powerlines cross farms belonging to private persons, government and other entities throughout South Africa. Because Eskom closed its case without calling its promised witness or leading any rebuttal evidence, the presumption stood unrebutted. The trial court's absolution was set aside and replaced with an order that the plaintiff succeeds 100% on the merits, with Eskom liable for proven or agreed damages.

Legal impact: The judgment develops the application of s 25 by confirming that (1) a licensee's admission of status plus identification of the line as its own is sufficient to engage the statutory presumption regardless of who owns the land, and (2) closing a case without leading credible contrary evidence leaves the presumption unrebutted and results in full liability. It distinguishes Lucas and Msomi on the basis that in those cases the defendants actually led credible contrary evidence. This raises the litigation risk for all electricity licensees — Eskom, municipal distributors, and private operators — who must now ensure they lead substantive rebuttal evidence or face deemed negligence. Personal injury practitioners can rely on licensee admissions and line identification without needing to prove land ownership or maintenance responsibility.