Don't Waste KZN 1 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Compensation Fund and Others (Appeal) (A378/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 525 (2 June 2025)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Review Application

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether section 91 of COIDA constitutes an internal remedy as envisaged by section 7(2)(a) of PAJA.
2. 2 Whether the Commissioner’s classification of the appellants under sub-classification 1201 was rational and lawful.
3. 3 Whether the review application was time-barred under section 7(1) of PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that section 91 of COIDA does not provide an internal remedy against the Commissioner’s decision to classify the appellants, and thus the High Court had jurisdiction to review the impugned decision. The Commissioner’s classification of the appellants under sub-classification 1201 was arbitrary and irrational, as the appellants’ business activities did not involve manufacturing or selling glass, and the risk profile was not aligned with that subclass. The Fund’s own investigators recommended a different classification, and the respondents failed to provide reasons for deviating from this recommendation. The review application was not time-barred, as the relevant decision...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Commissioner’s decision reviewed and set aside; substituted with classification under sub-classification 1960; costs awarded against respondents.

Orders

• The appeal is upheld.
• The second respondent’s decision to classify the appellants under sub-classification 1201 is reviewed and set aside and substituted with the assessment rates associated with sub-classification 1960 to be applied to each appellant from 28 January 2020.