Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
8 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Labour Law [2025] ZAKZPHC 45

Narayanasamy v Department of Labour: Compensation Commissioner (Appeal) (AR118/2024)

Narayanasamy v Department of Labour: Compensation Commissioner (Appeal) (AR118/2024) [2025] ZAKZPHC 45 (7 May 2025)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
AR118/2024
Judges
Henriques, R Singh

The court found that the Tribunal misdirected itself by failing to backdate the effective date of liability for compensation to the date of the workplace incident in May 1993, as required by COIDA ss 65(5) and 67(1). The undisputed medical evidence and factual admissions established that the appellant's depression and PTSD originated from the workplace trauma in 1993, and he had been unable to work since 1997. The Tribunal's apportionment of only 20% permanent disablement was arbitrary and unsupported by the evidence, which overwhelmingly indicated 100% permanent disablement. The court held t…

Source excerpt

  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
  • Permanent Disablement
  • Psychiatric Injury
  • Backdating Liability
  • Costs Award
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2025] ZAFSHC 49

Khumalo v Compensation Commissioner and Another (4083/2020)

Khumalo v Compensation Commissioner and Another (4083/2020) [2025] ZAFSHC 49 (21 February 2025)

Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
4083/2020
Judges
Opperman, Van Rhyn

The court found that the objection hearing under section 91 of COIDA was procedurally unfair. The applicant was not given proper notice of the new medical evidence introduced by the respondents, nor an opportunity to prepare or respond. The applicant was unrepresented and unaware of the legal consequences of the process, which violated her constitutional rights to administrative justice and access to courts. The conduct of the commissioner amounted to a gross irregularity, rendering the hearing and subsequent decision reviewable and invalid. The court held that condonation for the late filing…

Source excerpt

  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
  • Procedural Fairness
  • Condonation
  • Review Of Administrative Action
Read case analysis
Delict [2024] ZAECBHC 25

Ndiki v MEC for Education, Eastern Cape Province (128/2014)

Ndiki v MEC for Education, Eastern Cape Province (128/2014) [2024] ZAECBHC 25 (3 September 2024)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Case number
128/2014
Judge
NJ Mullins

The court found that while the plaintiff was on duty and performing his duties as an educator when stabbed by a learner, the assault did not arise out of or was incidental to his employment. The role of an educator is to educate learners, and while managing unruly behaviour is incidental to employment, being assaulted by a disgruntled learner is not a risk inherent or incidental to the duties of an educator. The incident was not an accident as defined by COIDA, and thus the plaintiff is not precluded from pursuing a damages claim against his employer. The defendant's special plea based on COI…

Source excerpt

  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
  • Scope Of Employment
  • Special Plea
  • Workplace Assault
  • Personal Injury
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPPHC 845

Maseko v Road Accident Fund (84274/2016)

Maseko v Road Accident Fund (84274/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 845 (27 August 2024)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
84274/2016
Judge
Strijdom

The court found that Rand Mutual Assurance, having compensated the plaintiff for past hospital and medical expenses under the commuting journey policy, is entitled to claim reimbursement from the Road Accident Fund in the plaintiff's name by virtue of the doctrine of subrogation. The court dismissed the defendant's special pleas regarding locus standi and the non-recoverability of claims under the commuting journey policy. The amount awarded for past hospital and medical expenses must be paid to Rand Mutual Assurance as undertaken by the plaintiff. The second point in limine was dismissed and…

Source excerpt

  • Subrogation
  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
  • Past Medical Expenses
  • Locus Standi
  • Commuting Journey Policy
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPJHC 657

Tsebo v Ziyabuya Outsourcing CC (2023/011918)

Tsebo v Ziyabuya Outsourcing CC (2023/011918) [2024] ZAGPJHC 657 (12 July 2024)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/011918
Judge
Osborne

The court found that the plaintiff did not plead disablement as defined in COIDA, and therefore the statutory bar to High Court jurisdiction did not apply. The particulars of claim, while broad and lacking in itemisation, were not so vague or embarrassing as to prevent the defendant from pleading. The forgiving standard for pleading quantum in personal injury claims was applied, and the court held that deficiencies in detail could be remedied through discovery and expert evidence. The exception was dismissed as it did not go to the heart of the claim, and the remaining complaints were matters…

Source excerpt

  • Exception To Particulars Of Claim
  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
  • Jurisdiction Of High Court
  • Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
  • Quantum Of Damages
  • Duty Of Care
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2024] ZALCJHB 520

Harold v Lucy and Others (J222/24)

Harold v Lucy and Others (J222/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 520 (5 June 2024)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
J222/24
Judge
M T M Phehane

The applicant failed to satisfy the legal test for recusal, as he did not provide substantial grounds for a reasonable apprehension of bias. The mere fact that the judge had previously ruled against the applicant does not constitute bias. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to determine claims for criminal offences or damages under COIDA. The application was not urgent and was procedurally defective. Accordingly, the recusal application was dismissed and the main application was struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

  • Recusal Of Judge
  • Jurisdiction
  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
  • Urgent Application
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAMPMHC 21

Schoonraad v Zulu (4289/2021)

Schoonraad v Zulu (4289/2021) [2024] ZAMPMHC 21 (2 April 2024)

Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Case number
4289/2021
Judge
Z Gumede

The court held that section 35(1) of COIDA clearly bars employees from instituting common law claims against their employers for occupational injuries. The plaintiff's claim for damages directly against the defendant is therefore bad in law. The defendant's failure to register the plaintiff under COIDA does not create a right for the plaintiff to sue the employer; the plaintiff may still claim compensation from the Commissioner, and the employer may be subject to a fine. The court found that the statutory limitation is constitutional and applicable, and the plaintiff's claim cannot succeed.

Source excerpt

  • Statutory Bar To Common Law Claims
  • Occupational Health And Safety Act
  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
  • Unemployment Insurance Fund
  • Personal Injury
  • Employer Liability
Read case analysis
Delict [2024] ZAGPJHC 234

P. v Housing Development Agency (21/50612)

P. v Housing Development Agency (21/50612) [2024] ZAGPJHC 234 (4 March 2024)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
21/50612
Judge
C. A. C. Korf

The court held that the defendant's exception to Claim A, based on COIDA, could not be upheld at the exception stage because the applicability of COIDA requires a factual determination that cannot be made solely on the pleadings. The defendant must plead COIDA as a defence and bear the onus of proving its applicability. Regarding Claim B, the court found that constitutional damages are not available in addition to common law damages arising from the same facts, as established by Fose and subsequent case law. The plaintiff failed to plead facts demonstrating that constitutional damages are the…

Source excerpt

  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
  • Constitutional Damages
  • Vicarious Liability
  • Emotional Distress
  • Appropriate Relief
  • Pleading Requirements
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2024] ZAWCHC 62

Van Der Vyver Transport (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Labour and Others (A128/2023; 5842/2020)

Van Der Vyver Transport (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Labour and Others (A128/2023; 5842/2020) [2024] ZAWCHC 62; [2024] 2 All SA 581 (WCC) (29 February 2024)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A128/2023; 5842/2020
Judges
Binns-Ward, Slingers, Nziweni

The majority held that the appellant's review application was fatally late, having been brought outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA, and that no proper application for condonation was made. The court found that the appellant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay, with significant periods of inaction unexplained. Furthermore, the appellant did not exhaust the internal remedy under section 91 of COIDA, nor did it demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying exemption. The majority concluded that the interests of justice did not warrant condonation, and…

Source excerpt

  • Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
  • Failure To Exercise Discretion
  • Condonation For Late Review
  • Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPPHC 55

Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commission and Others (49156/2021)

Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commission and Others (49156/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 55 (6 February 2024)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
49156/2021
Judge
HF Jacobs

The court found that the defendants' first special plea, relying on sections 43 and 44 of COIDA, was bad in law as those provisions do not apply to claims by service providers. This position has been confirmed by both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Gauteng High Court in previous litigation between the parties. The second special plea was found to be defective because it failed to allege the specific dates on which the debts became due, as required for a valid prescription defence. The court held that the process of pleadings recommences after summary judgment proceedings, and the plainti…

Source excerpt

  • Exception To Plea
  • Prescription Act
  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
  • Special Plea
  • Summary Judgment
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.