Promise v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (61756/2018) [2023] ZAGPPHC 14 (20 January 2023)

Promise v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (61756/2018) [2023] ZAGPPHC 14 (20 January 2023)

The court found that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities. Material contradictions existed between the Plaintiff's oral evidence, pleadings, and medical records regarding how and where the injuries were sustained. The Plaintiff's version was unsupported by objective evidence or corroborating witnesses, and the procedures in place at Doornfontein Station made it improbable that such an incident could have occurred without being noticed or reported. The Defendant's witnesses were found credible, and the absence of key medical and external witnesses undermined the Plaintiff's case. The totality of the evidence did not justify a finding of...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 14
Parties
Plaintiff: Mashego Dumisani Promise; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Case Number
61756/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs awarded to Defendant.
Judges
Phooko
Legal Topics
Negligence, Liability of Public Entities, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Liability of Public Entities Burden 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashego Dumisani Promise

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is liable in delict for injuries sustained by the Plaintiff when allegedly pushed out of a moving train.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff discharged the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities.
  3. 3 Whether contradictions in the Plaintiff's pleadings and evidence affect his credibility and the reliability of his version.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities. Material contradictions existed between the Plaintiff's oral evidence, pleadings, and medical records regarding how and where the injuries were sustained. The Plaintiff's version was unsupported by objective evidence or corroborating witnesses, and the procedures in place at Doornfontein Station made it improbable that such an incident could have occurred without being noticed or reported. The Defendant's witnesses were found credible, and the absence of key medical and external witnesses undermined the Plaintiff's case. The totality of the evidence did not justify a finding of...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs awarded to Defendant.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
  • The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of this action.