- Court rules Transnet must join the case due to dispute over manhole ownership and responsibility.
- Joinder prevents inconsistent rulings and protects plaintiff from losing claim to prescription.
- Trial will decide if manhole belonged to City of Cape Town or formed part of Transnet property.
The Western Cape High Court has ordered that Transnet Limited be added as a second defendant in a R1.49 million personal injury lawsuit brought by a Cape Town woman who fell into an open, unprotected manhole in Stikland almost three years ago.
The ruling, handed down by Acting Judge Da Silva Salie on 13 August 2025, means that the trial will now involve both the City of Cape Town and Transnet, with the court to determine which entity, if either, was legally responsible for the manhole at the time of the accident.
The applicant, Maureen Mary Hendricks, was walking near Stikland Train Station on 17 August 2022 when she plunged into an uncovered boundary inspection chamber. She claims the fall caused serious injuries, for which she is seeking R1 492 300 in damages to cover medical costs, loss of income, and pain and suffering.
The property where the manhole is situated belongs to Transnet. However, the City insists that the chamber forms part of Transnet’s infrastructure, while Transnet denies this, claiming it is located on a public sidewalk and forms part of the City’s sewer network. After the incident, the City covered the manhole, but the question of legal responsibility remained unresolved.
Why joinder was necessary
Initially, Hendricks sued only the City. But the City filed a special plea of “misjoinder and non-joinder,” arguing that Transnet should be part of the proceedings. With both parties disclaiming ownership, Hendricks faced a risk: if she proceeded against only one defendant and the court later found that the other was responsible, she might be left with no remedy, especially with the three-year prescription period for personal injury claims close to expiring.
Her legal team applied under Rule 10(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court, which allows a court to order the joinder of a party with a “direct and substantial interest” in the outcome.
Judge Salie found that Transnet met this threshold. “The very dispute as to whether the manhole is Transnet’s responsibility underscores that interest,” she wrote. The court held that excluding Transnet could lead to inconsistent judgments, wasted judicial resources, and possible injustice to the plaintiff.
Transnet’s objections dismissed
Transnet argued that it bore no responsibility for the manhole and should not be dragged into litigation unnecessarily. But the court stressed that denial of liability is not the test for joinder, the question is whether the party’s legal interests could be affected by the judgment.
The court concluded that the potential prejudice to Transnet was minimal compared to the prejudice Hendricks would face if she had to start a fresh claim against Transnet after the current case ended.
The order and next steps
In delivering judgment, Acting Judge Da Silva Salie ordered that Transnet be joined as the second defendant in the pending lawsuit. The court further ruled that the state-owned rail company must bear the costs of the joinder application, including the fees of the applicant’s counsel, with costs to be calculated on the ordinary “Scale A” basis.
This means that Transnet will now have to participate fully in the proceedings alongside the City of Cape Town, with both entities presenting their cases regarding who bore responsibility for the open manhole at the time of the accident.
The matter will proceed to trial with the City and Transnet as co-defendants. The court will ultimately determine whether the manhole was part of municipal infrastructure or under Transnet’s ownership and control. This finding will be central to deciding who, if anyone, is liable for the serious injuries suffered by Maureen Hendricks.
By ensuring that all potentially responsible parties are before the court, the judgment removes the risk of fragmented litigation and the danger that Hendricks could be left without a remedy due to the expiry of the three-year prescription period. It also ensures that the trial will produce a final, comprehensive ruling on the dispute, rather than leaving key questions unresolved.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
