Kekana v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (46801/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 751 (12 April 2018)

Kekana v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (46801/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 751 (12 April 2018)

The court found the plaintiff's version of events to be unreliable and improbable, particularly regarding the manner in which he exited the train and the reporting of the incident. The evidence of the defendant's witnesses, especially the train guard, was accepted as credible and consistent. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the defendant. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by attempting to board a moving train, and thus the defendant cannot be held liable. The claim was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 751
Parties
Plaintiff: Kabelo Brian Kekana; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2018
Case Number
46801/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits Only
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
N Kollapen
Legal Topics
Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Boarding Moving Train, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Delict Negligence Volenti Non Fit Injuria Boarding Moving Train Burden of Proof Credibility of Witnesses

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabelo Brian Kekana

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in relation to the incident resulting in the plaintiff's injury.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by attempting to board a moving train.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's version of events to be unreliable and improbable, particularly regarding the manner in which he exited the train and the reporting of the incident. The evidence of the defendant's witnesses, especially the train guard, was accepted as credible and consistent. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the defendant. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by attempting to board a moving train, and thus the defendant cannot be held liable. The claim was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.