Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Makhubela v PRASA (23147/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 597 (26 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a passenger’s damages claim against PRASA after finding his account of falling from a train highly improbable and unproven.
Khalipha v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (46963/2011) [2025] ZAGPJHC 648 (25 March 2025)
High Court liability judgment on a railway injury claim: the court found both parties negligent and apportioned damages 80% to the plaintiff and 20% to PRASA.
Mketo v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Appeal) (13636/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 65 (24 February 2025)
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
Hlazo v Passenger Rail Agency South Africa (27469/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 923 (20 September 2024)
The court found the plaintiff's version credible and satisfactory, supported by his explanation of overcrowding and inability to disembark at Isando. The defendant's witness was unreliable, provided contradictory evidence, and failed to explain material discrepancies in the liability report. The defendant did not call further witnesses to corroborate its version. Applying the principle from Mashongwa v Prasa, PRASA's failure to ensure the train doors were closed while in motion constituted negligence. On a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff was pushed from the train due to overcrowding a…
Source excerpt
Chauke v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (38743/2015) [2024] ZAGPJHC 621 (9 July 2024)
High Court delict claim against PRASA dismissed after the plaintiff failed to prove a 21h30 train incident at Vereeniging Station on 27 June 2014.
Msikaba v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (83786/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 344 (9 April 2024)
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
Davids v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (9794/2019) [2023] ZAWCHC 299 (24 November 2023)
The court held PRASA liable after a passenger was pushed from a moving train with open doors. Volenti and contributory negligence were rejected.
Sibisi v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (46617/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1351 (21 November 2023)
The court dismissed a delict claim against PRASA after finding the plaintiff failed to prove she was pushed from a moving train.
Mathews v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (35083/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 887 (4 August 2023)
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
Thubakgale v PRASA [2023] ZAGPPHC 463; 24580/2019 (13 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed a commuter’s claim against PRASA after finding he tried to board a moving train and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury.
Explore more
