South Africa Case Law

Mkhize v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (7024/20)

Mkhize v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (7024/20) [2025] ZAWCHC 57 (21 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7024/20

Judge

Thulare

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff sustained injuries while travelling on PRASA's train due to a violent incident involving robbers. PRASA failed to deploy adequate protection officers on the northern line despite its own risk assessments indicating a need for increased security. The defendant's evidence was insufficient to rebut the plaintiff's account or demonstrate reasonable measures were taken. The absence of protection services consistent with the level of crime constituted negligence. The harm suffered by the plaintiff was closely connected to PRASA's om…

Source excerpt

• Personal Injury
• Public Transport Liability
• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Security On Trains

Sibanyoni v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (73425/16)

Sibanyoni v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (73425/16) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1146 (4 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

73425/16

Judge

Mahosi

The High Court held PRASA liable for injuries sustained when the plaintiff was pushed from an overcrowded train with open doors at New Canada station.

• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Bodily Injury
• Public Transport Liability
• Delict
• Duty-of-care

Sibulawa v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (27470/2021)

Sibulawa v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (27470/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 736 (31 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27470/2021

Judge

Mazibuko

The High Court held PRASA 100% liable after finding that a train with open doors while in motion caused the plaintiff to fall and suffer injuries.

• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Public Transport Liability
• Personal Injury
• Delict
• Duty-of-care

Mkhize v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (11417/20)

Mkhize v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (11417/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1883 (3 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

11417/20

Judge

de Vos

The High Court held PRASA liable where a commuter was pushed from a moving train through open doors, finding the negligence issue was proved on one consistent version.

• Negligence
• Public Transport Liability
• Bodily Integrity
• Compensatory Damages
• Public-transport-liability
• Bodily-integrity

Phungula v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (12245/2021)

Phungula v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (12245/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1200 (21 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12245/2021

Judge

Mooki

The High Court held PRASA wholly liable after the plaintiff was pushed out of an open train door while the train was moving near Duncanville station.

• Public Transport Liability
• Open Carriage Doors
• Personal Injury
• Contributory Negligence
• Occupiers Liability
• Railway-liability

Chikwanda v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (76681/2019)

Chikwanda v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (76681/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 756 (10 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

76681/2019

Judge

de Vos

The court found that PRASA was negligent in operating a moving train with open doors, a well-established basis for liability in South African law. The plaintiff's version was accepted as credible and probable, supported by consistent testimony and the physical impossibility of her injuries occurring through closed doors. The defendant's witness was found unreliable and inconsistent. The criminal attack and the plaintiff's defensive actions did not break the chain of causation, as confirmed by Constitutional Court precedent. No evidence supported contributory negligence. PRASA is therefore lia…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Causation
• Contributory Negligence
• Public Transport Liability
• Bodily Injury
• Train Safety

Mofokeng v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (21/17928)

Mofokeng v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (21/17928) [2022] ZAGPJHC 885 (31 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/17928

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal CSP

The High Court held PRASA liable after a commuter fell from a moving train with open doors. The plaintiff proved negligence and his valid ticket.

• Duty Of Care
• Negligence
• Public Transport Liability
• Separation Of Merits And Quantum
• Personal Injury
• Delict

Masombuka v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (24617/2021)

Masombuka v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (24617/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 594 (2 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24617/2021

Judge

N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court found that the defendant was negligent in leaving the coach doors open while the train was in motion, which facilitated the plaintiff being thrown from the train and suffering injuries. The plaintiff's evidence was accepted as credible and consistent, and the defendant failed to establish contributory negligence. The absence of evidence regarding the necessity of security guards did not absolve the defendant of liability for failing to observe basic safety procedures. The defendant is therefore liable for the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Contributory Negligence
• Personal Injury
• Public Transport Liability

Motloung v PRASA (2019/13557)

Motloung v PRASA (2019/13557) [2022] ZAGPJHC 331 (16 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/13557

Judge

Strijdom

The court found that PRASA owed a public law duty to ensure the safety of rail commuters and failed to discharge this duty by operating the train with open doors and without adequate security measures. The plaintiff's evidence was credible and corroborated by objective facts, such as the train ticket and medical records. The defendant failed to present any substantive evidence to rebut the plaintiff's version or to support its pleaded case that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk. The court concluded that PRASA's negligence was the factual and legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries, a…

Source excerpt

• Public Transport Liability
• Negligence
• Vicarious Liability
• Duty Of Care
• Personal Injury

Motloung v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) (2013/32030)

Motloung v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) (2013/32030) [2022] ZAGPJHC 50 (10 February 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/32030

Judge

G Malindi

The court found that PRASA owed a public law duty to ensure the safety of its passengers, specifically by maintaining properly functioning and closed train doors. The evidence established that the vacuum pressure mechanism was malfunctioning, allowing the doors to be easily opened and closed by hand, which facilitated the criminal assault and ejection of the plaintiff from the moving train. The court held that there was a close enough connection between PRASA's negligent omission and the plaintiff's injuries, and that factual causation was established. Had the doors been properly closed and f…

Source excerpt

• Public Transport Liability
• Negligence
• Causation
• Duty Of Care