Jooste v Score Supermarket Trading (Pty) Ltd (Minister of Labour intervening) (CCT15/98) [1998] ZACC 18; 1999 (2) SA 1 (CC); 1999 (2) BCLR 139 (CC); (1999) 20 ILJ 525 (CC) (27 November 1998)

Jooste v Score Supermarket Trading (Pty) Ltd (Minister of Labour intervening) (CCT15/98) [1998] ZACC 18; 1999 (2) SA 1 (CC); 1999 (2) BCLR 139 (CC); (1999) 20 ILJ 525 (CC) (27 November 1998)

Section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 is not inconsistent with either the interim or the 1996 Constitution. The section is rationally connected to the legitimate government purpose of providing a comprehensive statutory compensation scheme for employees injured at work, which replaces the common law right to claim damages. The differentiation between employees and non-employees is not arbitrary or irrational, and there is no evidence of unfair discrimination. The denial of the right to claim general damages does not amount to a denial of access to courts or fair labour practices, as the statutory scheme provides an alternative mechanism...

Citation
[1998] ZACC 18
Parties
Applicant: Susara Elizabeth Magdalena Jooste; Respondent: Score Supermarket Trading (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Minister of Labour
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1998
Case Number
CCT 15/98
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Confirmation and Appeal / Appeal and Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order of constitutional invalidity not confirmed; respondent's special plea upheld; applicant's claim dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Yacoob, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Compensation for Occupational Injuries, Constitutional Invalidity, Equality Before Law, Access to Courts, Fair Labour Practices
Constitutional Law Labour Law Compensation for Occupational Injuries Constitutional Invalidity Equality Before Law Access to Courts Fair Labour Practices

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susara Elizabeth Magdalena Jooste

Applicant

Score Supermarket Trading (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Minister of Labour

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Confirmation and Appeal / Appeal and Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 is inconsistent with the interim or 1996 Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether section 35(1) violates the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
  3. 3 Whether section 35(1) infringes the right of access to courts and the right to fair labour practices.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 is not inconsistent with either the interim or the 1996 Constitution. The section is rationally connected to the legitimate government purpose of providing a comprehensive statutory compensation scheme for employees injured at work, which replaces the common law right to claim damages. The differentiation between employees and non-employees is not arbitrary or irrational, and there is no evidence of unfair discrimination. The denial of the right to claim general damages does not amount to a denial of access to courts or fair labour practices, as the statutory scheme provides an alternative mechanism...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order of constitutional invalidity not confirmed; respondent's special plea upheld; applicant's claim dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The order of constitutional invalidity of section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 is not confirmed.
  • The appeal succeeds.