Manzini v Great North Transport (Pty) Ltd (34404/2007) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1114 (1 September 2023)

Manzini v Great North Transport (Pty) Ltd (34404/2007) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1114 (1 September 2023)

The court found that the shooting incident occurred while both the plaintiff and Mr. Hlongwane were on duty and within the defendant's premises. However, the act of shooting was not connected to the plaintiff's employment duties but rather stemmed from a personal dispute. Therefore, the risk was not incidental to employment, and the claim was not precluded by section 35 of COIDA. The exception raised by the defendant was dismissed as the plaintiff was only required to plead material facts, not evidence or law. The defendant was held liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages arising from the incident.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1114
Parties
Plaintiff: Tshepo Abram Manzini; Defendant: Great North Transport (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2023
Case Number
34404/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded on the merits; defendant held liable for damages arising from the shooting incident.
Judges
Makhoba
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Course and Scope of Employment, Compensation for Occupational Injuries, Special Plea, Exception to Particulars of Claim
Delict Vicarious Liability Course and Scope of Employment Compensation for Occupational Injuries Special Plea Exception to Particulars of Claim

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshepo Abram Manzini

Plaintiff

Great North Transport (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the shooting incident involving its employees.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim is precluded by section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA).
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the shooting incident occurred while both the plaintiff and Mr. Hlongwane were on duty and within the defendant's premises. However, the act of shooting was not connected to the plaintiff's employment duties but rather stemmed from a personal dispute. Therefore, the risk was not incidental to employment, and the claim was not precluded by section 35 of COIDA. The exception raised by the defendant was dismissed as the plaintiff was only required to plead material facts, not evidence or law. The defendant was held liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages arising from the incident.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeded on the merits; defendant held liable for damages arising from the shooting incident.

Orders

  • The special plea is dismissed.
  • The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for such damages as may be agreed or proved arising out of the injuries or otherwise suffered by the plaintiff on 24 December 2004.