Case name: Kruger v Sibanyoni and Others (1191/2023) [2025] ZASCA 127 (9 September 2025)

Link: https://lawlibrary.org.za/akn/za/judgment/zasca/2025/127/eng@2025-09-09

A recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in Kruger v Sibanyoni has provided important guidance on the rights of occupiers to access electricity and may have broader implications for how the Electrical Installation Regulations are understood and applied in practice.

Why This Matters to the Electrical Industry

One of the recurring questions in electrical compliance is why the Certificate of Compliance (COC) is issued to the user or lessor of an electrical installation rather than simply to the owner of the property.

The answer lies in the purpose of the Electrical Installation Regulations.

The regulations are concerned with the safety and lawful use of an electrical installation by the person who occupies, controls, uses, or benefits from that installation. Ownership of the land is often irrelevant to whether a person is exposed to electrical risk.

This principle was indirectly reinforced by the Supreme Court of Appeal when it considered whether farm occupiers protected under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) were entitled to install electricity in their homes despite objections from the landowner.

The Court’s Findings

The Court held that:

• Electricity is a modern necessity.
• Access to electricity is reasonably necessary to make a dwelling habitable.
• The denial of electricity may undermine a person’s right to dignity.
• ESTA occupiers are entitled to make improvements reasonably necessary to render their homes habitable.
• The landowner’s consent is not required before electricity may be installed for that purpose.
• Meaningful engagement may be required, but agreement or consent from the owner is not a prerequisite.

The Court specifically found that the occupiers did not require the landowner’s consent to install electricity and that their right to access electricity flowed from their rights as lawful occupiers.

Why the Certificate of Compliance Is Issued to the User

Regulation 2 of the Electrical Installation Regulations defines a “user” broadly and places obligations on the person who uses or controls the electrical installation.

This case demonstrates exactly why that approach is necessary.

The occupiers were not the owners of the farm.

They nevertheless:

• occupied the dwelling;
• used the installation;
• required electricity;
• carried the practical risks associated with the installation; and
• were the persons whose safety and dignity depended on access to electricity.

In other words, they were the persons for whom electrical compliance mattered most.

The Electrical Installation Regulations therefore focus on the user and lessor because electrical safety follows occupation and control, not merely ownership.

A Significant Message for Landlords and Property Owners

The judgment sends a clear message that lawful occupiers cannot automatically be denied access to electricity merely because they do not own the property.

Where legislation grants occupation rights, the courts may recognise corresponding rights to receive electrical services necessary for safe and dignified habitation.

For occupiers protected under ESTA, the Court confirmed that a landowner cannot use ownership rights alone to prevent access to electricity where such access is reasonably necessary for human dignity and habitation.

What This Means for Electrical Contractors

Electrical contractors should understand that the person entitled to receive a Certificate of Compliance may not always be the registered owner of the property.

The legally relevant person is often the user, occupier, lessor, tenant, farm dweller, business operator, or other person who exercises control over and uses the electrical installation.

This judgment highlights the distinction between property ownership and electrical compliance obligations. While ownership remains important for property law purposes, electrical safety legislation focuses primarily on protecting those who actually use and are exposed to the electrical installation.

BravoScan’s View

This judgment reinforces a principle long embedded within the Electrical Installation Regulations: electrical compliance exists to protect people, not title deeds.

Where a person lawfully occupies and uses an electrical installation, that person becomes central to the compliance framework. The Court’s recognition that access to electricity may be secured without the owner’s consent in appropriate circumstances demonstrates why Regulation 2 correctly focuses on the user and lessor rather than ownership alone.

Electrical safety follows use, control and exposure to risk. The law increasingly recognises the same principle.

The recent Kruger v Sibanyoni judgment serves as a reminder that electrical compliance extends beyond technical workmanship and often intersects with property rights, occupier rights, human dignity, and statutory obligations. Understanding these legal and technical complexities requires more than a routine inspection. As an independent Approved Inspection Authority, BravoScan provides impartial assessments, expert guidance, and compliance support founded on the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Electrical Installation Regulations, and applicable SANS standards. Whether you are a homeowner, occupier, landlord, electrical contractor, attorney, insurer, or property manager, BravoScan’s multidisciplinary expertise helps ensure that compliance decisions are based on sound technical evidence and a proper understanding of the law. When compliance matters, independent professional advice can make all the difference.