Pig farm vs power station: South African court tells state-owned Eskom to clean up its pollution

About 74% of South Africa’s electricity is generated by coal-fired power stations owned by the state-owned electricity provider, Eskom .

These power stations produce greenhouse gas and air pollution and can also pollute nearby streams and rivers.

South African environmental law says that all power stations must have environmental authorisations and often water-use and atmospheric emission licences , which set out what the power stations must do to manage pollution risks.

Read more: South Africa’s power utility Eskom: how does it stack up in the pollution stakes? How effective these controls are in practice was at the centre of a recent court case.

Topigs Norsvin, a pig-breeding company, said polluted water from the Kusile power station had entered groundwater, a wetland and nearby streams, putting local water sources and its farming operations at risk.

Kusile power station is in Mpumalanga, South Africa’s coal heartland.

It began operating in 2017 and generates enough electricity to power over three million homes.

On 14 August 2026, South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Topigs Norsvin.

It found that Eskom had broken the environmental and water-use rules that applied to Kusile.

The court also found that government officials had failed to make Eskom follow the rules.

Read more: Nigeria and South Africa plan to boost fossil fuel production, risking their climate change pledges As a specialist in environmental and climate change law, I argue that the judgment answers three important questions: which environmental rules still apply after a major project is approved; who must make sure they are followed; and what courts can do when both companies and government regulators fail to act.

The court found that: Eskom had broken legally binding environmental and water rules and had not taken reasonable steps to reduce the pollution or repair the damage.

The senior government officials responsible for water and environmental affairs had acted unlawfully by failing to make Eskom follow these rules.

It ruled that Eskom and the government officials must take specific steps to address the problems and report back within deadlines set by the court.