Putco (Pty) Ltd v Winnie Mina Mosholi

The respondent, Ms Winnie Mina Mosholi, was a fare-paying passenger on a bus owned by the appellant, Putco (Pty) Ltd. The bus, driven by Stephen Seloane (an employee of the appellant acting within the course and scope of his employment), was involved in a collision with a bakkie. The collision caused the bus to overturn, resulting in multiple fatalities and injuries to passengers, including the respondent. The Road Accident Fund (RAF) settled the respondent's claim for the statutory limit of R25,000 in the magistrate's court. The respondent then claimed the balance of her damages from the appellant in the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. The trial proceeded on liability only, with quantum being postponed.

• Whether the bus driver's negligent driving was the sole cause of the collision
• The credibility of witnesses where versions are mutually destructive and probabilities evenly balanced
• Whether the RAF is a joint wrongdoer for purposes of section 2(10) of the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956
• Whether the trial court's credibility findings should be disturbed on appeal

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The trial court's finding that the appellant was liable for damages exceeding R25,000 (the RAF settlement amount) was upheld.

Where probabilities and improbabilities are evenly balanced in a case with mutually destructive versions, the matter must be decided on the credibility of the parties' respective witnesses. An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's credibility findings where the trial judge has given a carefully reasoned judgment with detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting witness testimony, and where those findings are supported by the record. The failure to keep a proper lookout constitutes negligence that can be the sole cause of a motor vehicle collision.

The court noted that the trial judge found that even if Seloane's evidence had been accepted, he would have been contributorily negligent on his own version, which would have affected the question of whether the RAF was a joint wrongdoer for purposes of section 2(10) of the Apportionment of Damages Act. However, this issue did not ultimately require determination given the finding that Seloane's negligence was the sole cause. The court also noted in a footnote that the respondent's case fell outside the purview of Mvumvu v Minister for Transport 2011 (2) SA 473 (CC), which declared the statutory limitation provision in the Road Accident Fund Act invalid. The court observed that it is fallacious to reason that because certain witnesses make no mention of a fact, it did not happen - it is possible that passengers in the bus were not aware of the bus moving from side to side, whereas a witness in the bakkie ahead noticed the lights 'zig-zagging' behind their vehicle.

This case illustrates the well-established principle in South African appellate law that appellate courts will not lightly interfere with credibility findings made by trial courts, particularly where the trial judge has given detailed, carefully reasoned explanations for accepting or rejecting witness testimony. The case also demonstrates the approach courts take when faced with mutually destructive versions and evenly balanced probabilities - in such cases, credibility becomes determinative. The case is marked as having 'no precedential significance' but serves as an example of the application of established principles regarding credibility findings and the limited scope for appellate interference.