Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Delict [2025] ZAWCHC 65

Mketo v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Appeal) (13636/2020)

Mketo v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Appeal) (13636/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 65 (24 February 2025)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
13636/2020
Judges
Erasmus, Lekhuleni, Bhoopchand

The Full Bench found that the trial court erred in concluding the Appellant failed to establish a contractual relationship with the Respondent. The Appellant's unchallenged evidence and provision of a train ticket established her status as a fare-paying passenger. The Respondent's failure to close the carriage doors constituted a wrongful omission, as public carriers owe a duty of care to passengers. The harm suffered by the Appellant—jumping from the moving train to escape an imminent attack—was a foreseeable consequence of the Respondent's negligent omission. Applying the principles from Ma…

Source excerpt

  • Public Carrier Liability
  • Negligence
  • Open Train Doors
  • Causation
  • Apportionment Of Damages
  • Contractual Nexus
Read case analysis
Delict [2024] ZAGPPHC 344

Msikaba v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (83786/2019)

Msikaba v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (83786/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 344 (9 April 2024)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
83786/2019
Judge
Collis

The court found that PRASA owed a clear legal duty of care to the plaintiff as a commuter and admitted this duty in its pleadings. The evidence established that the train doors remained open while the train was in motion, and the plaintiff was jostled out of the overcrowded train, sustaining injuries. The defendant's witnesses could not refute the plaintiff's account and were not credible. The plaintiff was a credible witness whose evidence was uncontroverted on material aspects. The court held that PRASA failed to observe the standard of care required by law, specifically by not ensuring the…

Source excerpt

  • Public Carrier Liability
  • Negligence
  • Duty Of Care
  • Open Train Doors
  • Contributory Negligence
Read case analysis
Delict [2023] ZAGPJHC 887

Mathews v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (35083/2019)

Mathews v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (35083/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 887 (4 August 2023)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
35083/2019
Judge
Mdalana-Mayisela

The court found that the plaintiff proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a passenger on the defendant's train, was pushed out through an open door while the train was in motion, and sustained injuries as a result. The defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff's evidence or provide credible alternative explanations. Applying the Constitutional Court's principles in Mashongwa, the defendant's omission to ensure that train doors were closed while in motion constituted negligence and wrongfulness. The omission was closely connected to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, establishing le…

Source excerpt

  • Public Carrier Liability
  • Negligence
  • Wrongfulness
  • Legal Causation
  • Train Safety
  • Open Train Doors
Read case analysis
Delict [2022] ZAGPJHC 399

Ngobeni v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A5046/2021)

Ngobeni v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A5046/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 399 (8 June 2022)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
A5046/2021
Judges
Mahomed, Wepener, Dippenaar

The court found that the respondent, as a public carrier, owed a legal duty to ensure the safety of its passengers, which included keeping train doors closed while the train was in motion and preventing overcrowding. The appellant's evidence that she was injured after falling out of a moving train with open doors was uncontroverted. The respondent failed to lead any evidence to challenge her version and relied solely on cross-examination, which did not establish a credible alternative account. The court held that the respondent's omission to close the doors and prevent overcrowding constitute…

Source excerpt

  • Public Carrier Liability
  • Negligent Omission
  • Open Train Doors
  • Overcrowding
  • Duty Of Care
  • Causation
Read case analysis
Delict [2016] ZAGPPHC 333

Muhanelwa v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others (21398/2013)

Muhanelwa v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others (21398/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 333 (12 April 2016)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
21398/2013
Judge
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The court found that the defendant, as a public carrier, owed a duty of care to its passengers. The evidence established that the train doors were open while the train was in motion, which facilitated the plaintiff being thrown out and injured. The defendant's witnesses conceded that such incidents were possible and that doors could be kept open by passengers. The court relied on the Constitutional Court's decision in Mashongwa v PRASA, which held that leaving train doors open constitutes negligence and creates a foreseeable risk of harm. The plaintiff's evidence was accepted as credible, and…

Source excerpt

  • Public Carrier Liability
  • Negligence
  • Open Train Doors
  • Causation
  • Apportionment Of Damages Act
Read case analysis
Delict [2012] ZAGPJHC 133

Mokwena v South African Rail Commuter Corporation Ltd and Another (14465/2010)

Mokwena v South African Rail Commuter Corporation Ltd and Another (14465/2010) [2012] ZAGPJHC 133 (14 June 2012)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
14465/2010
Judge
Satchwell

The court found that the plaintiff was a lawful passenger who was ejected from a moving train at Elandsfontein station due to overcrowding and the presence of an open door. The defendants failed to ensure that all doors were closed before the train departed, exposing the plaintiff to a foreseeable and obvious risk of harm. The evidence from the inspection in loco contradicted the defendants' assertions regarding platform usage and door operation, confirming that doors were indeed open while trains were in motion. The defendants did not produce any records or evidence of staffing, maintenance,…

Source excerpt

  • Negligence
  • Duty Of Care
  • Commuter Safety
  • Open Train Doors
  • Inspection In Loco
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.