Tsheletshe v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A115/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 279 (18 March 2025)

Tsheletshe v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A115/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 279 (18 March 2025)

The appeal court found that the probabilities in the case were evenly balanced and did not favour the appellant's version over the respondent's. The physical evidence regarding the location where the appellant was found was inconsistent with his pleaded and testified version of the accident. The trial court's factual findings, supported by the respondent's witnesses, were not shown to be clearly wrong. As the appellant bore the burden of proof and failed to discharge it, the appropriate order was absolution from the instance rather than outright dismissal. The appeal was dismissed, but the trial court's order was substituted accordingly. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs due to...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 279
Parties
Appellant: Pale Alphios Tsheletshe; Respondent: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2025
Case Number
A115/23
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Claim; Merits Only, Quantum Adjourned
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial court's order of dismissal set aside and substituted with absolution from the instance; no order as to costs.
Judges
M P Motha, M J Teffo, M M D Lenyai
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Absolution From the Instance, Burden of Proof, Mutually Destructive Versions, Train Accident Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Duty of Care Absolution From the Instance Burden of Proof Mutually Destructive Versions Train Accident Liability

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pale Alphios Tsheletshe

Appellant

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Claim; Merits Only, Quantum Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved on a balance of probabilities that PRASA breached its duty of care resulting in his injuries.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in its factual findings regarding the location and circumstances of the accident.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported the appellant's version or justified absolution from the instance.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the probabilities in the case were evenly balanced and did not favour the appellant's version over the respondent's. The physical evidence regarding the location where the appellant was found was inconsistent with his pleaded and testified version of the accident. The trial court's factual findings, supported by the respondent's witnesses, were not shown to be clearly wrong. As the appellant bore the burden of proof and failed to discharge it, the appropriate order was absolution from the instance rather than outright dismissal. The appeal was dismissed, but the trial court's order was substituted accordingly. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs due to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial court's order of dismissal set aside and substituted with absolution from the instance; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The court a quo’s order of dismissal is set aside and substituted with an order for absolution from the instance.