Mogane v MEC for Public Works, Road and Transport:Mpumalanga (6562/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 629 (29 June 2018)

Mogane v MEC for Public Works, Road and Transport:Mpumalanga (6562/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 629 (29 June 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant was negligent in failing to repair the hanging wire after becoming aware of it. The evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the duration the wire was hanging was inconsistent and contradicted by the defendant's witnesses, who credibly testified that the wire was only noticed after a storm on 2 February 2011 and repaired promptly on 4 February 2011. The court was not satisfied that the defendant had knowledge of the hazard for an unreasonable period or failed to act once notified. Furthermore, the plaintiff's own conduct in approaching the area of danger, despite the visible risk,...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 629
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
DT Skosana
Legal Topics
Negligence, Electrocution Injury, Occupier Liability, Causation, Contributory Negligence
Delict Land and Property Negligence Electrocution Injury Occupier Liability Causation Contributory Negligence

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 the defendant's alleged negligence cause the plaintiff's electrocution and injuries.
  3. 3 Was the plaintiff himself negligent in approaching the area of danger.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant was negligent in failing to repair the hanging wire after becoming aware of it. The evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the duration the wire was hanging was inconsistent and contradicted by the defendant's witnesses, who credibly testified that the wire was only noticed after a storm on 2 February 2011 and repaired promptly on 4 February 2011. The court was not satisfied that the defendant had knowledge of the hazard for an unreasonable period or failed to act once notified. Furthermore, the plaintiff's own conduct in approaching the area of danger, despite the visible risk,...

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.