South Africa Case Law

Ramanand v Department of Labour: Compensation Commissioner (AR 191/2022)

Ramanand v Department of Labour: Compensation Commissioner (AR 191/2022) [2023] ZAKZPHC 41; [2023] 7 BLLR 702 (KZP); (2023) 44 ILJ 1816 (KZP) (14 April 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 191/2022

Judges

Mossop, Smart

The court found that the tribunal erred in law by relying on Circular Instruction 172, which is not binding and conflicts with the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act. The appellant's disablement was caused by a single traumatic event in the course of employment, and uncontroverted expert evidence established permanent total disablement due to PTSD. The Act and Schedule 2 require a generous interpretation to promote social security, and the sixth classification covers any injury resulting in permanent total disablement, regardless of its nature. The tribunal failed to prov…

Source excerpt

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Disablement Assessment
• Interpretation Of Social Legislation
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action

Pretorius v Compensation Commissioner and Another (A17/2007)

Pretorius v Compensation Commissioner and Another (A17/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 128; (2010) 31 ILJ 1117 (O) (15 November 2007)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A17/2007

Judges

C.J. Musi, C. Van Zyl

The High Court set aside a compensation tribunal decision and remitted the matter for a fresh enquiry into the appellant’s disablement and equitable award.

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Disablement Assessment
• Tribunal Procedure
• Equitable Award
• Pain And Suffering Exclusion
• Compensation-for-occupational-injuries

Workmen's Compensation Commissioner v Van Zyl (388/94)

Workmen's Compensation Commissioner v Van Zyl (388/94) [1996] ZASCA 19; 1996 (3) SA 757 (SCA); [1996] 2 All SA 439 (A); (1996) 17 ILJ 488 (A) (25 March 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

388/94

Judges

Botha, Smalberger, Vivier, Scott, Plewman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Commissioner misunderstood his statutory duty under section 91(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act by treating the fixing of the date of accident as a factual finding rather than the exercise of a discretion. The Act requires the Commissioner to fix a date that is equitable in light of all the facts, particularly in cases of progressive industrial disease. The continued exposure to chrome dust resulted in further disablement, and the phrase 'commencement of the disablement' must be interpreted to include the latest aggravation, not merely the first m…

Source excerpt

• Workmen's Compensation Act
• Industrial Disease
• Disablement Assessment
• Statutory Interpretation