Ramotshekisi v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (7815/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 450 (6 May 2025)

Ramotshekisi v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (7815/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 450 (6 May 2025)

The plaintiff's application to amend his pleadings was refused because it was brought too late in the proceedings, with no reasonable explanation for the delay, and was not made in good faith. The contradiction between 'pushed' and 'pulled' was not a material fact affecting the cause of action, which was based on the defendant's alleged negligence in operating the train with open doors. The defendant's application for absolution from the instance was refused because the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of negligence; the contradiction in his evidence was not material to the pleaded cause of action. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs as both were partially successful.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 450
Parties
Plaintiff: Mohlamme Elvis Ramotshekisi; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2025
Case Number
7815/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Pleadings and Absolution From the Instance
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to amend pleadings dismissed; defendant's application for absolution from the instance dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Botsi-Thulare
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Absolution From Instance, Negligence, Duty of Care, Contradictory Evidence
Civil Procedure Delict Amendment of Pleadings Absolution From Instance Negligence Duty of Care Contradictory Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohlamme Elvis Ramotshekisi

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Pleadings and Absolution From the Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's application to amend pleadings should be granted despite being brought late in the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's application for absolution from the instance should succeed given the contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the contradiction between 'pushed' and 'pulled' is a material fact affecting the plaintiff's cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's application to amend his pleadings was refused because it was brought too late in the proceedings, with no reasonable explanation for the delay, and was not made in good faith. The contradiction between 'pushed' and 'pulled' was not a material fact affecting the cause of action, which was based on the defendant's alleged negligence in operating the train with open doors. The defendant's application for absolution from the instance was refused because the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of negligence; the contradiction in his evidence was not material to the pleaded cause of action. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs as both were partially successful.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to amend pleadings dismissed; defendant's application for absolution from the instance dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff’s application for the amendment of pleadings is dismissed.
  • The Defendant’s application for absolution from the instance is dismissed.