Mthembu v Transnet t/a Metrorail (157/08) [2009] ZASCA 67; [2009] 4 All SA 225 (SCA) (29 May 2009)

Mthembu v Transnet t/a Metrorail (157/08) [2009] ZASCA 67; [2009] 4 All SA 225 (SCA) (29 May 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court committed substantial misdirections by failing to consider the evidence of Phasha, whose contemporaneous record supported the respondent's version, and by incorrectly applying the onus of proof. The full court correctly identified these errors and concluded that the probabilities favoured the respondent. The applicant's version was inconsistent with her pleadings and the objective facts, and the trial court's credibility findings were unjustified. As a result, there were no reasonable prospects of success in a further appeal, and the application for special leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 67
Parties
Appellant: Gugu Precious Mthembu; Respondent: Transnet t/a Metrorail
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Case Number
157/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal After Respondent Succeeded in the Full Court.
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Streicher, Jafta, Mlambo, Hurt, Griesel
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Negligence, Onus of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Negligence Onus of Proof Credibility of Witnesses

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gugu Precious Mthembu

Appellant

Transnet t/a Metrorail

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal After Respondent Succeeded in the Full Court.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success in a further appeal against the full court's order of absolution from the instance.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in its evaluation of the evidence, particularly by ignoring material evidence from the respondent's witnesses.
  3. 3 Whether the onus of proof was correctly applied by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court committed substantial misdirections by failing to consider the evidence of Phasha, whose contemporaneous record supported the respondent's version, and by incorrectly applying the onus of proof. The full court correctly identified these errors and concluded that the probabilities favoured the respondent. The applicant's version was inconsistent with her pleadings and the objective facts, and the trial court's credibility findings were unjustified. As a result, there were no reasonable prospects of success in a further appeal, and the application for special leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for special leave to appeal is refused.