Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Paynter's Hardware CC v Chauke (34918/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 225 (8 April 2022)
The High Court upheld an exception, holding that COIDA bars an employee’s damages claim against an employer for occupational injury and leaves no cause of action.
Knoetze v Rand Mutual Assurance (A3047/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 4; [2022] 2 All SA 458 (GJ); (2022) 43 ILJ 1153 (GJ) (12 January 2022)
The court held that the tribunal misinterpreted and misapplied sections 65(1)(a) and 66 of COIDA by requiring the appellant to prove a causal connection between his hearing impairment and his employment before the statutory presumption could operate. The evidence established that the appellant contracted a listed occupational disease (hearing impairment) while performing listed work (exposure to noise) over a 39-year mining career. This triggered the presumption in section 66, shifting the evidentiary burden to the respondent to prove that the disease did not arise out of and in the course of…
Source excerpt
Rand Mutual Assurance Company Limited (Phasimeni) v Road Accident Fund (49539/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 573 (8 September 2017)
The High Court awarded Rand Mutual Assurance R3,827,329.47 against the Road Accident Fund after the Fund conceded liability and did not dispute quantum.
Sanan v Eskom Holdings Limited (2010/16004) [2010] ZAGPJHC 90; 2010 (6) SA 638 (GSJ) (7 October 2010)
Section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act No 130 of 1993 creates a complete statutory bar to any civil claim for damages by an employee against an employer for occupational injury or disease. The plaintiff's claim, based on alleged negligence resulting in mesothelioma, falls squarely within the ambit of the Act, which provides compensation for such occupational diseases. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti Ltd authoritatively confirmed that the statutory bar applies even where the employee may not be entitled to compensation under COIDA,…
Source excerpt
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…
Source excerpt
Explore more
