De Gee v Transnet SOC Ltd (30085/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 2; 2020 (2) SA 488 (GJ) (29 January 2019)

De Gee v Transnet SOC Ltd (30085/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 2; 2020 (2) SA 488 (GJ) (29 January 2019)

The court held that, based on the stated case, the facts did not establish that the plaintiff was acting within the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The plaintiff was injured while travelling in a lift to his office before his official working hours, and there was no evidence that he was under a contractual obligation to use that specific lift or that access to the lift was restricted to employees. The journey to the place of work is generally dissociated from employment unless the employee is fulfilling a specific obligation imposed by the contract of service. The defendant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the accident arose out of and in...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 2
Parties
Plaintiff: Gareth Everiste De Gee; Defendant: Transnet SOC Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2019
Case Number
30085/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea Adjudication
Outcome
Defendant's special plea is dismissed. Section 35 of COIDA does not prohibit the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.
Judges
CHJ Badenhorst
Legal Topics
Compensation for Occupational Injuries, Course and Scope of Employment, Statutory Bar of Claims, Special Plea, Occupational Injury
Labour Law Civil Procedure Compensation for Occupational Injuries Course and Scope of Employment Statutory Bar of Claims Special Plea Occupational Injury

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gareth Everiste De Gee

Plaintiff

Transnet SOC Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) bars the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
  3. 3 Whether the injury sustained by the plaintiff qualifies as an 'occupational injury' under COIDA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, based on the stated case, the facts did not establish that the plaintiff was acting within the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The plaintiff was injured while travelling in a lift to his office before his official working hours, and there was no evidence that he was under a contractual obligation to use that specific lift or that access to the lift was restricted to employees. The journey to the place of work is generally dissociated from employment unless the employee is fulfilling a specific obligation imposed by the contract of service. The defendant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the accident arose out of and in...

Court Disposition

Defendant's special plea is dismissed. Section 35 of COIDA does not prohibit the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

Orders

  • Defendant's special plea is dismissed.
  • Section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act does not prohibit the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.