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
Ntsoane v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (31544/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 291 (28 April 2022)
The High Court held PRASA liable for injuries suffered when a passenger was pushed from a moving train with open doors and inadequate security.
Mahlangu v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (41271/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 547 (29 June 2017)
The court found that the defendant admitted its duty of care towards the plaintiff but failed to provide any evidence or argument to refute the plaintiff's contention that this duty was breached. The plaintiff's account was consistent and credible, despite minor discrepancies in the time of the incident, which were explained as estimates. The evidence established that the train was overcrowded, the doors were open as it departed, and there were inadequate security measures to control passenger movement. The plaintiff was pushed out of the train and sustained injuries as a result. The defendan…
Source excerpt
Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Mashongwa (966/2013) [2014] ZASCA 202 (28 November 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that PRASA was not liable for a commuter’s robbery and assault on a train, finding no negligence or causal link.
Mfula v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (4222/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 8 (12 February 2014)
High Court delict claim against PRASA dismissed after the plaintiff failed to prove negligence, causation, or that the train incident occurred as alleged.
Mfula v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (12/4222) [2014] ZAGPJHC 50 (12 February 2014)
The court found the plaintiff's evidence to be inconsistent, improbable, and uncorroborated. The plaintiff failed to establish that he was a passenger on the train at the relevant time, that the incident occurred as described, or that the defendant's security measures were unreasonable or in breach of its legal duty. The defendant had implemented reasonable security measures in accordance with statutory and constitutional obligations, and there was no evidence of negligence or causal link between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff did not discharge the onus of…
Source excerpt
Kauluma and Others v Cabinet for Interim Government of South Africa and Others (137/88) [1988] ZASCA 138 (8 November 1988)
The Court held that the Administrator-General was vested with full or plenary legislative powers by virtue of Proclamation 181 of 1977, as authorised by section 38 of the South West Africa Constitution Act. The inclusion of exemptions in Orders AG 26 of 1978 and AG 50 of 1979 did not render them ultra vires, as such exemptions were intended to mitigate the harshness of absolute prohibitions and did not exceed the scope of the enabling provisions. The Orders were not invalid on grounds of unreasonableness or vagueness, as legislation enacted under plenary powers cannot be impugned on such grou…
Source excerpt
Explore more
