Latest news with #WesternCapeHighCourt
The Citizen
13 hours ago
- Business
- The Citizen
No fines or penalties over Koeberg delays, Eskom says
The two disputes stem from the Steam Generator Replacement Project of Unit 2 at Koeberg Nuclear Power Station. Eskom has sought to clarify that two contractual disputes with Framatome, the contractor for the Steam Generator Replacement Project at the Koeberg nuclear power station, are being addressed through agreed resolution processes. The two disputes stem from the Steam Generator Replacement Project of Unit 2 at Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, which has now seen significant progress, following problems that contributed to a bout of stage 3 load shedding in March. Steam generators Framatome had taken over the contract to supply and install replacement generators at the power plant's two reactor buildings from Areva NP in 2018. The recent Long-Term Operation (LTO) programme for Unit 2 included the replacement of three steam generators, extensive inspections, and refuelling activities, ensuring continued safe and efficient performance. ALSO READ: Koeberg Unit 2 back online, but what caused the 'unplanned' trip? Eskom needed to replace the plant's six steam generators – three in each of its two units – to prolong its life by another 20 years. Media reports Eskom issued a statement on 21 July, following media reports, that the utility had been ordered by the high court to pay more than R1 Billion to Framatome over delays to the Steam Generator Replacement Project at Koeberg. According to reports, the Western Cape High Court agreed with the findings of an adjudicator who investigated the delays two and a half years ago, ruling that Eskom was at fault for the stoppage of work and had to pay for breaching its contract. Disputes The utility's spokesperson, Daphne Mokwena, said the two disputes were adjudicated between December 2022 and February 2023. Mokwena said in accordance with the contract, disputes are first referred to adjudication and, if not resolved, to arbitration. 'As Eskom was not satisfied with the adjudicator's decisions, the two matters were escalated to arbitration as per the agreed process. The arbitration was held from June to July 2025, and a decision is expected in the last quarter of Eskom's financial year. ALSO READ: Load shedding: Hiccup in Eskom's power plans 'Recent media reports appear to have mixed separate legal processes. To clarify, no new payments are currently due, and all actions taken by Eskom have been in line with the applicable legal and contractual procedures,' Mokwena said. Disagreement Mokwena added that although Eskom disagreed with the adjudicator's decisions, the utility complied with the requirement to implement the outcome and made payments in the interim. 'All payments had been made by March 2024 as part of standard contract processes—not as penalties or fines. At the same time, in March 2023, Eskom approached the Cape High Court to have the adjudicator's decisions set aside due to procedural irregularities.' Mokwena said the court only delivered its judgment on 17 July 2025, over a year late. 'Eskom is currently reviewing the judgment to determine the appropriate next steps. We encourage the public and media to trust the integrity of this process. Eskom is following the proper legal channels to resolve these matters responsibly, and we remain committed to transparency and accountability throughout. 'Most importantly, despite these disputes, the core technical work, replacing the steam generators on Koeberg Unit 2, has been completed. This is a major milestone that contributes to the safe and extended operation of the power station, helping to ensure energy security for the country,' Mkowena said. Eskom stated that it anticipates a decision on the arbitration hearing in the last quarter of its financial year. Koeberg Koeberg's units 1 and 2 have undergone life extension exercises. In July last year, the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) granted Eskom a licence to continue operating Koeberg Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 until 21 July 2044. As a result, Koeberg Unit 1 is expected to contribute over 930MW to the grid for another 20 years,' Mokwena said. ALSO READ: Eskom takes action after breach of online vending system
IOL News
2 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Eskom to pay R1 billion penalty over Koeberg steam generator dispute
Eskom has been ordered to pay French company Framatome almost R1 billion by the Western Cape High Court in a contractual dispute over the replacement of steam generators at the Koeberg Power Station. Image: Supplied Power utility Eskom must pay French nuclear power company Framatome nearly R1 billion in a contractual dispute over the replacement of steam generators at the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station. Eskom hauled the company formerly known as Areva to the Western Cape High Court to challenge adjudicator Peter Ramsden's decisions on the merits and the quantum delivered in December 2022 and March 2023, respectively. The entity's contention was that both decisions were beyond his jurisdiction and failed to apply the rules of natural justice. Eskom complained that Ramsden failed to take into account its submissions, issue a reasoned decision and decide the issues that he was required to decide. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ In addition, Eskom stated that the adjudicator failed to receive and take into account its response to Framatome's amended claim as well as its submissions when determining the quantum. Eskom was also unhappy that the adjudicator accepted the amounts in the company's amended claim without having enquired into the supporting documents or the details of the claim, failed to issue a reasoned decision and/or follow the procedure he laid down by himself. The dispute dates back to 2014 when the parties concluded an agreement to replace the steam generators at Koeberg. In terms of the contract, Framatome work included the supply and installation of two sets of three replacement steam generators, with one set to be installed in each of the reactor buildings at units one and two at Koeberg during their separate planned outages. The work of replacing the steam generators can only be performed during maintenance and refuelling outages when the power station is offline and the outages are planned in advance and around Eskom's operational requirements. Eskom had scheduled the outage dates and planned to replace the steam generators but then twice postponed for a later date. The power utility then informed Framatome that it would not be continuing with the steam generator replacement work during one of the outages. However, the company notified Eskom of an event which required it to notify the power supplier of such an event and that it required compensation after the postponement. This was acknowledged by the project manager. Eskom then unsuccessfully approached the adjudicator, claiming that both decisions were unenforceable as contractual obligations and need not be complied with as he exceeded his powers. It later filed an application for several declarators, which acting Judge Renata Williams dismissed with costs on Thursday. Framatome succeeded in its counter-application and Eskom was ordered to pay the company €35,288,582 (about R729 million) exclusive of value-added tax (VAT) and subject to the price adjustment for inflation pursuant to secondary option clause of the contract. Payment is also pursuant to certain clauses of the contract, interest thereon calculated at the London Interbank Offered Rate applicable at the time for amounts due in other currencies Additionally, Eskom must pay Framatome more than R256.6m exclusive of VAT and subject to the price adjustment for inflation pursuant to secondary option clause of the contract and pursuant to certain clauses including interest. The power utility was also ordered to pay the costs of Framatome's counter application including the costs of the company's France-based attorneys. 'There is no basis to set aside the decisions of the adjudicator which are valid and binding. In terms of the parties' contract Eskom was obliged to comply therewith,' acting Judge Williams ruled. Eskom spokesperson Daphney Mokwena did not respond to requests for comment on Saturday. Cape Times
IOL News
4 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Eskom faces R1 billion penalty in high-stakes Koeberg steam generator dispute
Eskom has been ordered to pay French company Framatome almost R1 billion by the Western Cape High Court in a contractual dispute over the replacement of steam generators at the Koeberg Power Station. Image: Supplied Power utility Eskom must pay French nuclear power company Framatome nearly R1 billion in a contractual dispute over the replacement of steam generators at the Koeberg Power Station. Eskom hauled the company formerly known as Areva to the Western Cape High Court to challenge adjudicator Peter Ramsden's decisions on the merits and the quantum delivered in December 2022 and March 2023, respectively. The entity's contention was that both decisions were beyond his jurisdiction and failed to apply the rules of natural justice. On the merits, Eskom complained that Ramsden failed to take into account its submissions, issue a reasoned decision and decide the issues that he was required to decide. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading In addition, Eskom also stated that the adjudicator failed to receive and take into account its response to Framatome's amended claim as well as its submissions when determining the quantum. Eskom was also unhappy that the adjudicator accepted the amounts in the company's amended claim without having enquired into the supporting documents or the details of the claim, failed to issue a reasoned decision and/or follow the procedure he laid down by himself. The dispute dates back to 2014 when the parties concluded an agreement to replace the steam generators at Koeberg. In terms of the contract, Framatome work included the supply and installation of two sets of three replacement steam generators, with one set to be installed in each of the reactor buildings at units one and two at Koeberg during their separate planned outages. The work of replacing the steam generators can only be performed during maintenance and refuelling outages when the power station is offline and the outages are planned in advance and around Eskom's operational requirements. Eskom had scheduled the outage dates and planned to replace the steam generators but then twice postponed for a later date. The power utility then informed Framatome that it would not be continuing with the steam generator replacement work during one of the outages. However, the company notified Eskom of an event which required it to notify the power supplier of such an event and that it required compensation after the postponement. This was acknowledged by the project manager. Eskom then unsuccessfully approached the adjudicator, claiming that both decisions were unenforceable as contractual obligations and need not be complied with as he exceeded his powers. It later filed an application for several declarators, which acting Judge Renata Williams dismissed with costs on Thursday. Framatome succeeded in its counter-application and Eskom was ordered to pay the company €35,288,582 (about R729 million) exclusive of value-added tax (VAT) and subject to the price adjustment for inflation pursuant to secondary option clause of the contract. Payment is also pursuant to certain clauses of the contract, interest thereon calculated at the London Interbank Offered Rate applicable at the time for amounts due in other currencies Additionally, Eskom must pay Framatome more than R256.6m exclusive of VAT and subject to the price adjustment for inflation pursuant to secondary option clause of the contract and pursuant to certain clauses including interest. The power utility was also ordered to pay the costs of Framatome's counter application including the costs of the company's France-based attorneys. 'There is no basis to set aside the decisions of the adjudicator which are valid and binding. In terms of the parties' contract Eskom was obliged to comply therewith,' acting Judge Williams ruled. Eskom spokesperson Daphney Mokwena did not respond to requests for comment on Saturday.
IOL News
5 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
Tribunal rules Judge Parker lied about Hlophe assault, calls it gross misconduct
Western Cape Judge Parker found guilty of contradictions and ethical breaches Image: Supplied The Judicial Conduct Tribunal has found Judge Mushtak Parker guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct after it emerged that he provided contradictory statements regarding an alleged assault by former Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe. The tribunal, chaired by retired Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, delivered a damning verdict, stating that Parker's actions violated the standards expected of a judicial officer. The tribunal examined two complaints against Judge Parker, both centered on allegations of misconduct involving dishonesty. The first complaint, lodged on March 23, 2020, by ten Western Cape High Court judges, accused Parker of lying under oath about being physically assaulted by Hlophe in his chambers on February 25, 2019. Parker initially deposed an affidavit claiming he had been shoved and assaulted by Hlophe, an account supported by affidavits from other judges. However, in a subsequent affidavit a year later, Parker retracted his earlier version, asserting that no assault had occurred. This flip-flop, supported by testimonies from colleagues, was deemed by the tribunal to be 'mutually exclusive' and indicative of gross misconduct. In his judgement, Judge Ngoepe stated, 'The respondent acted dishonestly in giving two contradictory and mutually exclusive versions about the incident that happened in his Chambers between himself and former Judge President Hlophe. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading 'And by giving these two contradictory and mutually exclusive versions, the respondent rendered himself guilty of gross misconduct, as envisaged in section 177(1)(a) of the Constitution.' Earlier in February, the key witness, Judge Derek Wille, recounted how Parker, visibly distressed, confided in him about the alleged assault and dictated an initial affidavit. Wille also testified that Parker showed him a broken key, which Parker claimed was caused during the assault. Further testimonies revealed that Parker had relayed details of the incident to several colleagues, some of whom expressed concern over his emotional state. Adding complexity to the case, Parker's colleagues noted that his accounts of the altercation with Hlophe were inconsistent and sometimes openly contradictory. In some instances, Parker maintained that he was assaulted; in others, he seemed to question whether an assault had taken place. The second complaint, brought by the Cape Bar Council, accused Parker of failing to disclose a significant trust account deficit during his application for permanent appointment as a judge. It was revealed that Parker's law firm had a long-standing R8 million shortfall due to misappropriation of trust funds, which he omitted in his application to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Judge Ngoepe said that Parker's failure to disclose such material information constituted 'gross misconduct,' breaching ethical standards expected of judicial officers and attorneys. In delivering the verdict, Judge Ngoepe ruled against Parker, citing the weight of evidence indicating dishonesty and misconduct. 'Given the body of evidence before us, the tribunal finds that Judge Parker's contradictory statements about the incident with Hlophe are unacceptable and constitute gross misconduct,' he declared. IOL Politics
IOL News
16-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Lawyer struck off struck off the roll for misappropriation of R50 000 in property deal
A lawyer has been struck from the roll of legal practitioners in the Western Cape High Court, after being found guilty of bringing the legal profession into disrepute. Image: File Lawyer Deon Jakobus Beukman has been struck from the roll of legal practitioners in the Western Cape High Court, after being found guilty of bringing the legal profession into disrepute for misappropriating R50 000 meant to be refunded to a buyer in a property transaction. The matter relates to a 2009 transaction. Beukman had been the conveyancer in terms of a sale agreement for a property in Somerset West for R550 000. The buyer paid an amount of R561 921.46 to the lawyer and consented to certain funds being paid to expedite the registration of the transfer. The respondent further paid an amount of R41 250 to the estate agent, for his commission. However the seller died on February 20, 2009 before the transfer was registered, and the executor of the seller's estate elected to cancel the sale agreement as the seller's deceased estate was insolvent. The lawyer refunded the buyer an amount of R481 653.81 together with interest of R67 895.53. The buyer subsequently issued a summons in the Magistrate's Court against the respondent under case number 3349/2009 in which he claimed an amount of R81 935.34, as the buyer believed that he was entitled to a full refund of the R561 921.46 that he had paid to the respondent, together with interest in the amount of R69 563.22. During the course of the civil proceedings, it also came to light that the estate agent had refunded his R50 000 commission which included interest, to the lawyer as a result of the dispute. Beukman however did not make the payment to the buyer. One of his arguments to a complaint lodged against him with the LPC by the buyer was that the estate agent had refunded him the funds in terms of an indemnity signed and that there was therefore no duty on him to invest the funds in his trust account. For several years, nothing came of the complaint; until the LPC conducted an audit of all matters that were outstanding and during the course of this assessment, the matter was identified, and its finalisation was prioritised, court papers read. The matter was first heard before a disciplinary committee on April 30, 2024, where Beukman was found guilty and later escalated to the high court. Judge Ncumisa Mayosi found: 'Deon Jakobus Beukman (Beukman) is struck from the roll of legal practitioners of this Honourable Court. Beukman shall pay Mr Ian Jacobs the sum of R50 000 on or before November 30, 2025. In the event that Beukman fails to comply with the terms of sub-paragraph 4 above, either the LPC or Mr Ian Jacobs may institute contempt of court proceedings against Beukman.' 'The respondent's offending conduct is not confined to the admitted act of misappropriating R50 000, which may appear to be an insignificant amount to some. The respondent's offending conduct is compounded by his further actions which displayed persistent dishonesty; a lack of reliability. Not only did the respondent not pay the money over to his client; he did not even inform his client that the commission with interest had been refunded. This lack of transparency and accountability is deeply problematic for a legal practitioner charged with trust funds that do not belong to him. The respondent remained undeterred in his refusal to pay the buyer, even in the face of a striking off application contemplated by the LPC, which if granted would curtail his livelihood.' Beukman did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. Cape Times
