Bhengu v Passenger Rail of South Africa (2018/8803) [2021] ZAGPJHC 729 (5 July 2021)

Bhengu v Passenger Rail of South Africa (2018/8803) [2021] ZAGPJHC 729 (5 July 2021)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof required to establish negligence on the part of PRASA or its employees. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and her witness was inconsistent, evasive, and lacked credibility, particularly regarding the circumstances of the incident and the alleged presence of two boys who supposedly pushed her. In contrast, the defendant's witness, Mr Ngcobo, was found to be credible and reliable, and his version that the plaintiff attempted to board the train while it was in motion was supported by the probabilities and the nature of the injuries sustained. The court concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were consistent with a...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 729
Parties
Plaintiff: Zandile Bhengu; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 July 2021
Case Number
2018/8803
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mudau
Legal Topics
Negligence, Public Transport Liability, Onus of Proof, Mutually Destructive Versions
Delict Land and Property Negligence Public Transport Liability Onus of Proof Mutually Destructive Versions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zandile Bhengu

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PRASA owed and breached a legal duty of care to the plaintiff as a train passenger.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was injured due to the negligent acts or omissions of PRASA's employees.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's version of events is more probable than the defendant's version.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof required to establish negligence on the part of PRASA or its employees. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and her witness was inconsistent, evasive, and lacked credibility, particularly regarding the circumstances of the incident and the alleged presence of two boys who supposedly pushed her. In contrast, the defendant's witness, Mr Ngcobo, was found to be credible and reliable, and his version that the plaintiff attempted to board the train while it was in motion was supported by the probabilities and the nature of the injuries sustained. The court concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were consistent with a...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.