MEC for Education, Western Cape Province v Strauss (640/06) [2007] ZASCA 155; [2007] SCA 155 (RSA); [2008] 1 All SA 440 (SCA); 2008 (2) SA 366 (SCA) (28 November 2007)

MEC for Education, Western Cape Province v Strauss (640/06) [2007] ZASCA 155; [2007] SCA 155 (RSA); [2008] 1 All SA 440 (SCA); 2008 (2) SA 366 (SCA) (28 November 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 60 of the South African Schools Act only renders the State liable in circumstances where the school would have been liable. Section 35(1) of COIDA expressly excludes liability on the part of the employer for damages in respect of occupational injury or disease, substituting statutory compensation. Since the respondent was an employee and the incident fell within the definition of an accident under COIDA, the school would not have been liable for damages, and therefore the State cannot be liable under section 60. The special plea should be upheld. The costs of the Rule 33(4) application and the postponement should follow the result, as the...

Citation
[2007] SCA 155 (RSA)
Parties
Appellant: MEC for Education, Western Cape Province; Respondent: Edith Strauss
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2007
Case Number
640/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape High Court; Special Plea Decided Before Evidence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea upheld; respondent's claim based on section 60 of the South African Schools Act dismissed; costs awarded to appellant including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Scott, Mthiyane, Cloete, Heher, Malan
Legal Topics
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, State Liability, Educator Employment, Special Plea, Rule 33 4 Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act State Liability Educator Employment Special Plea Rule 33 4 Application

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MEC for Education, Western Cape Province

Appellant

Edith Strauss

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape High Court; Special Plea Decided Before Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) precludes the respondent's claim for damages against the State under section 60 of the South African Schools Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was acting within the scope of employment as an educator or independent trainer at the time of injury.
  3. 3 Whether the State's liability under section 60 of the South African Schools Act is subject to COIDA's exclusion of common-law damages claims by employees.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 60 of the South African Schools Act only renders the State liable in circumstances where the school would have been liable. Section 35(1) of COIDA expressly excludes liability on the part of the employer for damages in respect of occupational injury or disease, substituting statutory compensation. Since the respondent was an employee and the incident fell within the definition of an accident under COIDA, the school would not have been liable for damages, and therefore the State cannot be liable under section 60. The special plea should be upheld. The costs of the Rule 33(4) application and the postponement should follow the result, as the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea upheld; respondent's claim based on section 60 of the South African Schools Act dismissed; costs awarded to appellant including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel.
  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of the court a quo are set aside and replaced with: (a) The special plea is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel and the plaintiff’s claim based on section 60 of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 is dismissed; (b) The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the...