Transnet Limited v Arlindo De Assis Januario Maela

On 23 June 2004, the respondent (plaintiff) was travelling as a passenger on a train operated by Transnet. He sued Transnet for damages arising from injuries sustained during an incident on the train. The respondent testified that after the train left Dunswart station, he was robbed of his cell phone and money by other passengers who then forced open the sliding doors of the moving train and threw him out, causing injuries when his head hit the platform. Transnet's version, presented through security officer Mzobanzi Ceba, was that the respondent attempted to disembark from the train at Apex station after it had begun moving, having missed his intended stop at Benoni station. Ceba testified he was one of seven plainclothes security officers patrolling the train, and witnessed the respondent squeeze through the closing doors and jump from the moving train despite being warned not to do so. Ceba immediately reported the incident to a colleague who found the respondent with serious injuries on the railway line at Apex station.

• Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the evidence of the appellant's witness and accepting the respondent's version of events
• Whether the respondent established that the appellant was liable in delict for failing to prevent the incident
• Whether the appellant's employees acted negligently in their duty to protect passengers from foreseeable harm
• The proper application of principles regarding credibility assessment and demeanour evidence on appeal

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the trial court was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the action with costs.

Where two mutually exclusive versions are presented and the trial court's acceptance of one version is based on unfair or insignificant criticism of the opposing witness, and where objective established facts are consistent with the rejected version and inconsistent with the accepted version, an appellate court is entitled to interfere with the trial court's credibility findings. While a trial judge has the advantage of observing witness demeanour, the truthfulness or untruthfulness of a witness can rarely be determined by demeanour alone, and appellate review must consider the probabilities and objective facts. Minor inconsistencies between a witness's contemporaneous written report and later oral testimony do not necessarily undermine credibility, particularly where the witness acknowledges the report's greater accuracy and the discrepancies concern trivial details rather than material facts.

The court observed that the conduct of attempting to board or alight from a moving train, while highly irresponsible, is regrettably common among commuters seeking to catch a train they would otherwise miss or avoid being overcarried past their destination. The court also noted, without deciding, that the case did not justify the employment of both senior and junior counsel by the appellant. Additionally, the court acknowledged (following Shabalala v Metrorail) that rail operators owe passengers a legal duty to act without negligence, and that harm to passengers from criminal activity on trains is foreseeable, creating an obligation to take reasonable steps to provide for passenger safety, though this duty is distinct from the inquiry into whether negligence occurred in a particular case.

This case is significant in South African law for reinforcing important principles regarding appellate review of credibility findings. It demonstrates that appellate courts will interfere with trial court findings on credibility where the trial judge's assessment is based on unfair or insignificant criticisms of witnesses, and where the objective facts support a different version. The judgment emphasizes that demeanour evidence alone is insufficient to determine truthfulness, particularly where established facts point to a contrary conclusion. The case also illustrates the application of delictual principles to claims against rail operators, affirming that while such operators owe passengers a duty to take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable harm (including criminal activity), liability must still be proven on the balance of probabilities. The court's approach to assessing two mutually destructive versions based on probabilities and objective facts is instructive for similar cases.