Mkhabela and Others v Prasa (50819/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 444 (17 June 2016)

Mkhabela and Others v Prasa (50819/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 444 (17 June 2016)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the defendant. The evidence presented by the plaintiff, particularly the testimony of Mr Skakane, was inconsistent and contradicted both his prior statement and the pleadings. The court found his explanation for these discrepancies unconvincing and regarded him as an unreliable witness. The defendant's witnesses provided a more probable account, demonstrating that safety procedures were followed and that the train was stopped immediately after the incident. The contradictions in the plaintiff's case, coupled with the improbabilities in the evidence, led the court to conclude that...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 444
Parties
Plaintiff: Joyce Mkhabela; Plaintiff: Precious Tebogo Ndou; Plaintiff: Precious Tebogo Ndou obo Tshwarelo Honour Ndou; Defendant: PRASA
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Case Number
50819/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Judges
R G Tolmay
Legal Topics
Negligence, Loss of Support, Public Transport Liability
Delict Land and Property Negligence Loss of Support Public Transport 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joyce Mkhabela

Plaintiff

Precious Tebogo Ndou

Plaintiff

Precious Tebogo Ndou obo Tshwarelo Honour Ndou

Plaintiff

PRASA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in causing the death of the deceased at Eerste Fabrieke Station.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved any negligence on the part of the defendant sufficient to sustain a claim for loss of support.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence presented by the plaintiff was credible and sufficient to discharge the onus of proof.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the defendant. The evidence presented by the plaintiff, particularly the testimony of Mr Skakane, was inconsistent and contradicted both his prior statement and the pleadings. The court found his explanation for these discrepancies unconvincing and regarded him as an unreliable witness. The defendant's witnesses provided a more probable account, demonstrating that safety procedures were followed and that the train was stopped immediately after the incident. The contradictions in the plaintiff's case, coupled with the improbabilities in the evidence, led the court to conclude that...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay its own costs.