Ndakana v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A864/2016, 37086/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 111 (28 February 2019)

Ndakana v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A864/2016, 37086/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 111 (28 February 2019)

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the respondent's employees. The evidence of the appellant and her corroborating witnesses was inconsistent, unreliable, and contradicted by the physical circumstances and operational procedures at Saulsville station. The respondent's witnesses, the train driver and train guard, provided credible and consistent testimony that the train did not move a second time after stopping, except with authority for paramedic access. The court held that the probabilities favoured the respondent's version, and the appellant's account contained inherent improbabilities. Without objective evidence to...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 111
Parties
Appellant: Annah Ndakana; Respondent: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2019
Case Number
A864/2016, 37086/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Trial Court; Merits Only, Quantum Separated
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
L C Haupt, R G Tolmay, D Nair
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Personal Injury, Absolution From the Instance
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Onus of Proof Personal Injury Absolution From the Instance

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annah Ndakana

Appellant

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Trial Court; Merits Only, Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proving negligence on the part of the respondent's employees.
  2. 2 Whether the train moved a second time after stopping at Saulsville station, causing the appellant to fall.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supports the appellant's version over the respondent's version.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the respondent's employees. The evidence of the appellant and her corroborating witnesses was inconsistent, unreliable, and contradicted by the physical circumstances and operational procedures at Saulsville station. The respondent's witnesses, the train driver and train guard, provided credible and consistent testimony that the train did not move a second time after stopping, except with authority for paramedic access. The court held that the probabilities favoured the respondent's version, and the appellant's account contained inherent improbabilities. Without objective evidence to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay its own costs.