Makhubela v PRASA (23147/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 597 (26 May 2025)

Makhubela v PRASA (23147/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 597 (26 May 2025)

The court found the Plaintiff's version of events to be highly improbable and unsupported by any documentary or independent evidence. The Plaintiff failed to report the incident promptly, and PRASA's records showed no incident or fault with the train on the relevant date. Security personnel were present, and the train guard did not observe any person on the tracks. The Plaintiff admitted that his own conduct contributed to his injury. The court held that the Plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof required to establish negligence on the part of PRASA. Consequently, the claims of volenti non fit iniuria and contributory negligence became moot, and the action was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 597
Parties
Plaintiff: Sydney Makhubela; Defendant: PRASA
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2025
Case Number
23147/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Botha
Legal Topics
Negligence, Burden of Proof, Volenti Non Fit Iniuria, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages Act, Public Carrier Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Burden of Proof Volenti Non Fit Iniuria Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages Act Public Carrier Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sydney Makhubela

Plaintiff

PRASA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant was negligent in its duty towards the Plaintiff as a passenger.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's injuries were caused by the Defendant's alleged negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's own conduct constituted contributory negligence or volenti non fit iniuria.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Plaintiff's version of events to be highly improbable and unsupported by any documentary or independent evidence. The Plaintiff failed to report the incident promptly, and PRASA's records showed no incident or fault with the train on the relevant date. Security personnel were present, and the train guard did not observe any person on the tracks. The Plaintiff admitted that his own conduct contributed to his injury. The court held that the Plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof required to establish negligence on the part of PRASA. Consequently, the claims of volenti non fit iniuria and contributory negligence became moot, and the action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The action is dismissed.
  • The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of suit on High Court scale B.