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
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.
Sefako v PRASA (61254/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 197 (25 February 2025)
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence regarding the incident was credible and corroborated by an independent witness. The defendant's denial was unsupported by any substantive evidence, and its witnesses could not shed light on the occurrence of the incident. The court held that PRASA, as a public carrier, owed a duty of care to its passengers, which was breached when the train departed with open doors, resulting in the plaintiff's injury. The absence of security staff and failure to ensure passenger safety constituted negligence. The defendant's plea of contributory negligence was no…
Source excerpt
Sikhosana v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (38166/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1386 (15 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed a commuter’s delict claim against PRASA after finding he attempted to board a moving train and voluntarily assumed the risk.
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.
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.
Mavhungu v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (83450/14) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1928 (20 November 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff was a credible and consistent witness who was injured as a result of being pushed out of an overcrowded train through open doors while the train was in motion. The defendant failed to ensure that the train doors were closed, in breach of its operating instructions and public duty to commuters. The evidence did not support the defendant's version that the plaintiff was hanging outside the train or acted recklessly. No evidence of contributory negligence was established. The defendant's omission was wrongful and negligent, and causally connected to the plainti…
Source excerpt
Kangola v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (19806/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 436 (8 May 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof required to establish liability on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff's version was internally inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and was contradicted by the evidence of the defendant's witness, who testified that the plaintiff was attempting to board a moving train without a ticket and was not a passenger. The plaintiff could not explain why no other passengers fell from the train, how he lost his bag and ticket, or why he was found on the opposite side of the platform from where passengers normally board. The co…
Source excerpt
Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) v Seleke (A5016/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 51 (25 January 2023)
The appeal court held that PRASA was not shown to be negligent. The respondent’s attempt to board a moving train was found to be the sole cause of the injuries.
Buthelezi v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (37364/17) [2020] ZAGPJHC 24 (25 February 2020)
The High Court granted absolution from the instance in a delict claim after finding the plaintiff had not proved PRASA was negligent in relation to train doors or overcrowding.
Masango v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (32319/2013) [2020] ZAGPPHC 3 (10 January 2020)
The High Court dismissed a passenger’s damages claim against PRASA after finding she failed to prove, on balance of probabilities, that negligence caused her injuries.
Explore more
