PRASA’s open-door commuter trains remain a reliable source of income for legal practitioners: A survey of recent case law

• Citation: 2024 TSAR 189
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2024/i2a1
• Published date: 11 April 2024
• Pages: 189-221
• Author: Scott, T.J.
• Date: 11 April 2024

https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2024/i2a1

[ISSN 0257 – 7747]TSAR 2024 . 2

189

PRASA’s open-door commuter trains

remain a reliable source of income for legal

practitioners: a survey of recent case law

TJ SCOTT*

SAMEVATTING

PRASA SE OOPDEUR PENDELTREINE BLY ’N BETROUBARE INKOMSTEBRON VIR

REGSPRAKTISYNS: ’N OORSIG VAN ONLANGSE REGSPRAAK

Ofskoon die spoorwegstelsel in Suid-Afrika reeds vroeg ontwikkel het en tydens die vorige eeu ’n

hoogtepunt va n effektiwiteit én diensbaa rheid bereik het, het dit oor die la aste dekades erg verval, i n

die besonder wat pe ndeldienste deur voorste delike treine betref. H ierdie toestand het aa nleiding gegee

tot die stigti ng van die Rail Commuter s Action Group wat in 2005 in Rail Co mmuters Action Group v

Transnet t/a Metrorail daarin geslaag h et om die konstitu sionele hof daarvan t e oortuig d at die Passenger

Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) wat vi r pendeldienste verantwoordel ik is, ’n publiekregtelike

verpligti ng het om pendelaars veilig te ver voer. Dieselfde hof het in 2016 in Mashongwa v Passenger

Rail Agency of South Africa beslis datPRASA se verpligting teenoor pendelaars ook privaatregt elik

van aard is en d at verbreking daar van die grondslag van ’n delik tuele vordering kan vor m.

In 2023 is daar ve rskeie uitsprake in die SAFLIIhofverslae gerapp orteer, waarvan die volgen de vyf

gehandel het oor bes erings opgedoen deu r pendelaars wat tyde ns hul reis by oop treind eure uitgeval het

en ernstig b eseer is: Mthethwa v Passen ger Rail Agency of South Afr ica (PRASA), Maphela v Passenger

Rail Agency of Sout h Africa, Mathekga v Pa ssenger Rail Agency of S outh Africa, Mavh ungu v Passenger

Rail Agency of Sout h Africa en Davids v The Passe nger Rail Agency of South Afr ica. In hierdie bydrae

word elk van hierdie u itsprake krities ontle ed om te bepaal hoe die howe die geykt e beginsels van die

deliktereg p robeer toepas om die toe nemende aantal sake va n dié aard te besleg.

Slegs een van die uits prake is as rappo rteerbaa r aangemerk (die Maphela-saa k), wat aanduidend is van

die feit dat die regt ers (met die uitsonderi ng van die voorsitten de beampte in die Davids-uit spraak almal

waarneme nd) nie van oordeel was dat hulle o orspronklike bydr aes tot die regspleging gemaa k het nie.

Ofskoon dit die geval blyk te we es, bied hul uitsprake waa rdevolle voorbeelde vir die prak tyk van hoe

veral die onreg matigheids- en nala tigheidselement van die on regmatige daa d in dié soort geval bena der

en toegepas word. O ngelukkig skiet mee ste van hierdie uits prake in ’n mindere of meerd ere mate tekort

ten aansien va n die hantering van die regs teorie, byvoorbeeld wat die uite ensetting en toepa ssing van

die toets vir nalatigheid betref. Dit kom ook voor of daar nie deurgaans duidelikheid heers oor die

grense van die onregmatigheids- en nalatigheidselemente nie. Verder blyk dit dat die meerderheid

regters tev rede was om die kousaliteitsv raag slegs met verwysing na feitel ike kousaliteitsbeginsel s te

besleg, sonder om jur idiese kousaliteit uitd ruklik te oor weeg.

Dit blyk duidelik dat d ringende stappe nodig i s om die infrastru ktuur van ons pendel- spoorverkeer

te verbeter ten einde te verhoed dat die soort ongeval wat in hierdie bydrae onder die loep geneem

word, voortduu r, of selfs vererger. Tot tyd en wyl dit ges kied, sal PRASA se treine met oop d eure ’n

betroubare i nkomstebron vir reg praktisyns ver seker.

1 Introduction

The railway age in South Africa commenced i n 1860 when the  rst steam train

completed its rst of cial journe y over a distance of th ree ki lometres between

Durban and the Point. Th at occasion marked the beginning of the development of a

wide-ranging net work of rail, road, harbou r, pipeline and air ser vices later operated

by an extremely ef cient state organ isation, the South African Railways and

*Professor Extraordinarius in Private Law, University of South Africa.

2024 TSAR 189

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

TSAR 2024 . 2 [ISSN 0257 – 7747]

190 SCOTT

https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2024/i2a1

Harbours (SAR&H).1 The SAR&H came into being when the four Souther n African

British colonies amalgamated i nto the Union of South Africa on 31 May 1910.2

The golden years of rail services were the sixties and seventies of the previous

century, when South Africa’s economic prosperity became conspicuous and

an unequalled economic growth rate was reached (6,9% in 1967).3 In 1981 the

SAR&H became the South Af rican Transport Services (SATS), a name change that

was necessitated by the multi-model nature of the organisation. In 1990 this state

enterprise cha nged into a limited company, Transnet Ltd, of which the rail business

division, with the exception of commuter services, was renamed Spoornet, which

ultimately tran sformed into Transnet Freight Rail i n 2007. Commuter services were

separated to fall u nder the newly formed South African Rail C ommuter Corporation

(SARCC).4 After some further steps in reorganising rail services, the SARCC was

nally transformed i nto the Pas senger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) in

2009. It consists of four branches, namely Metrorail, r unning commuter serv ices in

urban areas, Shosholoza Meyl, responsible for regional and inter-city rail services,

Autopax, providing extensive coach ser vices and Interpro, which man ages PRASA’s

property.5

The abovementioned wide-ranging reorganisation may justiably lea d one to

conclude that a vastly improved rail service has been launched to cater for the

needs of an ever-increasing number of commuters who are dependent on reliable

transport. Unfortunately, such a conclusion appears to be totally unfounded, for

PRASA in its totality has steadily been deteriorating at a rapid pace over the last

decade to such an extent that m any of its activities have ceased. A prime example of

this is the discontinuation of commuter rail services on the important Central Line

in the Cape Peninsul a – catering for a vast number of commuters from town ships as

far as Khayelitsha in the nor thern regions around Cape Town – due to the fact that

since the outbreak of the Covid pandemic in 2019 trains stopped running on this

line as a result of theft and vandalism of vital rail equipment, following PRASA’s

cancellation of security contracts with private security companies.6 Since then

about 8 000 homeless persons have built shacks on the rails and railway reserve;

notwithstanding numerous press releases by PRASA and the minister of transport

proclaiming a resolve to have these settle rs removed, the situation still continues.7

Another, even more ser ious, failure of PR ASA to full its mandate has been the

discontinuation of intercit y train services by the Shosholoza Meyl since 2021. These

rail services were su spended as a result of operational and inf rastructural pr oblems,

mainly due to theft and vandalising of the rail infrastructure. Notwithstanding

PRASA’s solemn resolve to restore this vital service, its rst at tempt to run a t rain

from Johannesburg to C ape Town on 8 December 2023 was comically u nsuccessful:

1 Orpen IX Standard Encyclopaedia of Southern Africa (1973) 218.

2 Orpen (n 1) 221.

3 Anon “Railway country: 150 years of rail in South Africa” https://www.transnetfreightrail-tfr.net/

Heritage/150 years/150Y 1 (18-12-2023).

4 ibid.

5 Anon “About us” https://www.PRASA.com/About.html 1 (18-12-2023).

6 See eg Palm “Metrorail working to remove informal settlers from central line” Eyewitness News

(25-02-2022) https://www.ewn.co.za/2022/02/25/metrorail-working-to-remove-informal-settlers-from-

central-line 1 (27-12-2023).

7 See eg Payne “Informal settlement on Metrorail tracks still hinders progress on Cape Town’s

central line” Daily Maverick (15-05-2022) https://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-05-15-informal-

settlement-on-metrorail-tracks-still-hinders-progress-oncape-towns-central-line1 (27-12-2023); Phaliso

“Conict erupts over PRASA plan to relocate shack dwellers from central line to land used for

traditional practices” Daily Maverick (3-10-2023) 1 (27-12-2023).

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

PRASA’S OPEN-DOOR COMMUTER TRAINS: A SURVEY OF RECENT CASE LAW 191

[ISSN 0257 – 7747]TSAR 2024 . 2

https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2024/i2a1

the train could not proceed any further than Worcester – 100 kilometres from its

destination – due to cable theft.8 Scarcely a month after the reinstatement of this

“service” – which provided a single return journey per week from Johannesburg

to Cape Town – it was nally abandoned after only a month, due to multiple

difculties.9 Considering PRASA’s dismal safety record, particularly in respect of

commuters using its Metrorail service, some observers would probably regard the

ongoing failure of its rail serv ices as a blessing!

The quality of service rendered by PRASA, in particular through its Metrorail

branch, has stead ily been declining over the last 30 years, to such an extent that t he

Rail Commuters Action G roup was established in 2001 by the Van Minnens, parents

of a commuter who had been murder ed while commuting in one of Metrorail’s trains

on the “relatively safe” Southern Line in the Cap e Peninsula (Cape Town to Simons

Town).10 The object of this volunta ry association is to investigate safety and sec urity

matters on commuter trains and to take appropriate action where necessary. The

background to this initiative appears from the following statement by Leslie van

Minnen, revealing the astonishing lack of accountability on the part of PRASA/

Metrorail:

“We discovered that neither SAPS nor PRASA/Metrorail accepted responsibility for passenger

safety. We also discovered that passengers were left at the mercy of criminals and there were

murders, rapes, assaults and robberies. PRASA/Metrorail trains had defective doors and many

passengers fell or we re thrown out of moving trai ns after being robbed, s ometimes dying or being

badly hurt. Victims were either ignored or marginalised by PRASA/Metrorail. Neither PRASA/

Metrorail, SA PS nor the Minister of Trans port felt it was their duty to p rotect passengers.”11

This state of affairs prompted the Rail Commuters Action Group to institute legal

action in the Western Cape high court against the railroad operators (at that stage

Transnet t/a Metrorail and the South A frican Rail Commuter Corporat ion), and the

ministers of transport and safety and security, as well as the MEC for community

safety in the Western Cape. T his initiative met with instant success whe n Davis and

Van Heerden JJ on 6 February 2003 de clared that “t he rst and second respondents

have a legal duty to protect the lives and property of members of the public who

commute by rail, while they are making use of the rail transport ser vices provided

and ensured by, respectively, the rst and second res pondents”.12 This result hinged

mainly on the cour t’s interpretat ion of two vital subsections of the Legal Succession

to the South African Transport Services Act 9 of 1989 which regulate the legal

position of t he rst three respondents, in particular that “a service that is in the

public interest” must be provided13 and, more detailed, that “ rail commuter services

8 Le Roux “PRASA puts Shosholoza Meyl back on track: All aboard … or not?” The Citizen

(3-12-2023) https://www.citizen.co.za/news/PRASA-shosholoza-meyl-long-distance-intercity-train-

service-trains-back 1 (27-12-2023); Mthethwa “Return of Shosholoza Meyl train service marred

by cable theft” News24 (9-12-2023) https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/return-of-

shosholoza-meyl-train-service-marred-by-cable-theft (9-12-2023) 1 (27-12-2023).

9 Mantshansha “PRASA quietly suspends Joburg to CT long-distance service after fanfare launch” 1

(16-01-2024); Du Toit “South Africa’s long-distance trains suspended – one month after relaunch”

https://topauto.co.za/news/95428/south-africas-long-distance-trains-suspended-1-month-after-

relaunch/ 1(16-01-2024).

10 Van Minnen “The terrible price of PRASA’s negligence and corruption” GroundUp (8-12-2017)

https://groundup.org.za/article/terrible-price-prasas-negligence-and-corruption/ 1 (14-01-2024).

11 Van Minnen 1-2.

12 Rail Commuter Action Group v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail (No 1) 2003 5 SA 518 (C) 591F.

13 s 15(1).

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd