Mashego v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa [2023] ZAGPPHC 338; 61756/2018 (24 May 2023)

Mashego v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa [2023] ZAGPPHC 338; 61756/2018 (24 May 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal, as there were no reasonable prospects of success. The trial court did not elevate the standard of proof above the balance of probabilities, and its use of the terms 'conclusive and irrefutable' did not amount to a misdirection. The evidence and testimony presented did not support the applicant's claim that he was injured at Doornfontein train station. The grounds of appeal were without merit, and the requirements under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not satisfied. Costs were awarded against the applicant as there was no reason to depart from the general rule.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 338
Parties
Applicant: Mashego Dumisani Promise; Respondent: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2023
Case Number
61756/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Damages Claim
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused; the application is dismissed with costs.
Judges
M R Phooko
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Threshold, Balance of Probabilities, Assessment of Evidence, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Threshold Balance of Probabilities Assessment of Evidence Costs Order

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashego Dumisani Promise

Applicant

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Damages Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in relying on hearsay evidence in the form of medical records.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof in its judgment.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success if leave to appeal is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal, as there were no reasonable prospects of success. The trial court did not elevate the standard of proof above the balance of probabilities, and its use of the terms 'conclusive and irrefutable' did not amount to a misdirection. The evidence and testimony presented did not support the applicant's claim that he was injured at Doornfontein train station. The grounds of appeal were without merit, and the requirements under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not satisfied. Costs were awarded against the applicant as there was no reason to depart from the general rule.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused; the application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.