Mogane v MEC for Public Works,Road and Transport:Mpumalanga (6562/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 595 (29 June 2018)

Mogane v MEC for Public Works,Road and Transport:Mpumalanga (6562/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 595 (29 June 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant was negligent in failing to repair the hanging wire after becoming aware of it, or that such negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries. The evidence presented by the defendant was preferred, establishing that the wire was only noticed after a storm on 2 February 2011 and that reasonable steps were taken to report and repair the hazard promptly. The plaintiff's version regarding the duration of the hazard and the timing of repairs was inconsistent and unsupported by credible evidence. The absence of testimony from key eyewitnesses further undermined the plaintiff's...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 595
Parties
Plaintiff: Leaders Mogane; Defendant: MEC for Public Works, Road and Transport: Mpumalanga
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Case Number
6562/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability (merits) Only; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Skosana
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupier Liability, Causation, Electrical Injury
Delict Land and Property Negligence Occupier Liability Causation Electrical Injury

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

Leaders Mogane

Plaintiff

MEC for Public Works, Road and Transport: Mpumalanga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability (merits) Only; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant negligent in failing to repair the hanging electrical wire after becoming aware of it?
  2. 2 Did such negligence cause the electrocution and injuries of the plaintiff on 3 February 2011?
  3. 3 Was the plaintiff himself negligent in approaching the area of danger?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant was negligent in failing to repair the hanging wire after becoming aware of it, or that such negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries. The evidence presented by the defendant was preferred, establishing that the wire was only noticed after a storm on 2 February 2011 and that reasonable steps were taken to report and repair the hazard promptly. The plaintiff's version regarding the duration of the hazard and the timing of repairs was inconsistent and unsupported by credible evidence. The absence of testimony from key eyewitnesses further undermined the plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.