Mankayi v Anglogold Ashanti Limited (06/22312) [2008] ZAGPHC 420 (26 June 2008)

Mankayi v Anglogold Ashanti Limited (06/22312) [2008] ZAGPHC 420 (26 June 2008)

The court held that section 35(1) of COIDA is clear and unequivocal in barring any action for damages by an employee against the employer in respect of occupational injury or disease, including those compensatable under ODIMWA. The legislative history demonstrates that both COIDA and ODIMWA form a comprehensive statutory compensation regime for mineworkers, and there is no rational basis for treating claims under ODIMWA differently. The maxim generalia specialibus non derogant does not apply because the legislative intention is manifestly clear. Constitutional arguments regarding equality and access to courts do not override the explicit statutory language, as the exclusion of common law...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 420
Parties
Plaintiff: Mankayi Thembekile; Defendant: Anglogold Ashanti Limited
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 June 2008
Case Number
06/22312
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld. Plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 14 days.
Judges
Joffe
Legal Topics
Occupational Diseases, Statutory Bar to Common Law Claims, Compensation for Injuries, Silicosis, Constitutional Interpretation, Statutory Interpretation
Delict Labour Law Occupational Diseases Statutory Bar to Common Law Claims Compensation for Injuries Silicosis Constitutional Interpretation Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mankayi Thembekile

Plaintiff

Anglogold Ashanti Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) bars a common law claim for damages by a mineworker suffering from occupational diseases covered by the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act (ODIMWA).
  2. 2 Whether the statutory compensation regime under COIDA and ODIMWA precludes the plaintiff from pursuing delictual damages against the employer.
  3. 3 Whether the interpretation of section 35(1) of COIDA infringes constitutional rights to equality and access to courts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 35(1) of COIDA is clear and unequivocal in barring any action for damages by an employee against the employer in respect of occupational injury or disease, including those compensatable under ODIMWA. The legislative history demonstrates that both COIDA and ODIMWA form a comprehensive statutory compensation regime for mineworkers, and there is no rational basis for treating claims under ODIMWA differently. The maxim generalia specialibus non derogant does not apply because the legislative intention is manifestly clear. Constitutional arguments regarding equality and access to courts do not override the explicit statutory language, as the exclusion of common law...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld. Plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 14 days.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The plaintiff is given leave to amend his particulars of claim within 14 days from the date of delivery of this judgment.