Msiza v Asolutiona t/a Advocate Solutions (Pty) Ltd (15790/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1070 (10 June 2019)

Msiza v Asolutiona t/a Advocate Solutions (Pty) Ltd (15790/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1070 (10 June 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff was present on the premises solely for work purposes, having been relocated there in accordance with her employment contract. The premises were not accessible to the public, and the route taken by the plaintiff was the only available means of access for employees. The plaintiff was aware of the presence of the dogs and the associated risk, as evidenced by her own testimony and the 'Beware of the Dogs' sign. The injuries sustained by the plaintiff were therefore incidental to her employment and arose out of and in the course of her work. In terms of section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, the plaintiff is precluded...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 1070
Parties
Plaintiff: B.E. Msiza; Defendant: Asolutions t/a Advocate Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2019
Case Number
15790/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Determination of Separated Issue Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant is precluded by section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act.
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, Employer Liability, Occupational Injury, Exclusion of Common Law Claims
Labour Law Delict Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act Employer Liability Occupational Injury Exclusion of Common Law Claims

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.E. Msiza

Plaintiff

Asolutions t/a Advocate Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Determination of Separated Issue Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's injuries were sustained in the course and scope of her employment with the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 precludes the plaintiff from claiming damages from the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the risk of injury from the dogs was incidental to the plaintiff's employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was present on the premises solely for work purposes, having been relocated there in accordance with her employment contract. The premises were not accessible to the public, and the route taken by the plaintiff was the only available means of access for employees. The plaintiff was aware of the presence of the dogs and the associated risk, as evidenced by her own testimony and the 'Beware of the Dogs' sign. The injuries sustained by the plaintiff were therefore incidental to her employment and arose out of and in the course of her work. In terms of section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, the plaintiff is precluded...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant is precluded by section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act.

Orders

  • The separated question is upheld: the plaintiff is precluded from claiming damages against the defendant.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the action.