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
Louw v Fourie N.O and Another (3074/2016) [2024] ZAFSHC 211 (8 July 2024)
The High Court found Netcare liable for failing to respond to repeated complaints about workplace abuse, awarded damages and punitive costs, but declined a published apology.
Schoonraad v Zulu (4289/2021) [2024] ZAMPMHC 21 (2 April 2024)
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
Hobongwana v Benteler South Africa (Pty) Ltd (494/2019) [2023] ZAECQBHC 6; (2023) 44 ILJ 1125 (ECP); [2023] 4 BLLR 359 (ECP) (6 February 2023)
The court held that the defendant negligently failed to train and supervise a labour-brokered worker before assigning him to hazardous machinery, causing his back injury.
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v JL and Others (C886/17; C627/2018) [2021] ZALCCT 95; (2022) 43 ILJ 903 (LC) (10 December 2021)
Labour Court upheld a sexual harassment finding and employer liability, reduced compensation, set aside constructive dismissal, and varied costs.
Louw v Grobler and Another (3074/2016) [2021] ZAFSHC 223 (28 September 2021)
The High Court ordered further discovery under Rule 35(3), finding that the hospital’s objections based on irrelevance and confidentiality were not justified.
National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Another v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (JS1071/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 312; (2021) 42 ILJ 2637 (LC); [2022] 1 BLLR 90 (LC) (23 September 2021)
The court found that the applicant was indeed subjected to sexual harassment by two managers, constituting unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act. However, the applicant failed to bring the conduct to the immediate attention of the employer as required by section 60(1), with delays of several years before formal reporting. The court held that reporting to colleagues or confidential wellness practitioners does not amount to reporting to the employer for statutory purposes. Once the employer was formally notified, it took reasonable steps to investigate and eliminate the conduct,…
Source excerpt
PE v Dr Beyers Naude Local Municipality and Another (828/2011) [2021] ZAECGHC 35; [2021] 2 All SA 839 (ECG); (2021) 42 ILJ 1545 (ECG); 2022 (1) SA 560 (ECG) (13 April 2021)
The court awarded damages to a woman compelled to resign after a workplace sexual assault, finding the municipality’s reinstatement offer unlawful and unreasonable.
Churchill v Premier of Mpumalanga and Another (889/2019) [2021] ZASCA 16; [2021] 2 All SA 323 (SCA); (2021) 42 ILJ 978 (SCA); [2021] 6 BLLR 539 (SCA); 2021 (4) SA 422 (SCA) (4 March 2021)
The SCA held that a workplace assault during a union protest did not arise out of the employee’s employment, so COIDA did not bar her delictual claim.
South African National Parks v Nyathi (2042/2019) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 71 (4 March 2021)
The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action against the excipient. The excipient, as custodian of nature, cannot be held liable for injuries caused by wild animals merely by allowing nature to take its course, as established in Sambo and Mbhele. Furthermore, Section 35 of COIDA excludes any common law claim for damages arising from occupational injury; the plaintiff's remedy lies within the statutory compensation scheme. The plaintiff's attempt to introduce new facts in heads of argument was impermissible, as the court must decide the exception o…
Source excerpt
Crocodile Valley Citrus Farm v Mathlase and Others (1556/2019) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 44 (19 November 2020)
The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, as they contradicted the annexed employer's report of accident and failed to set out a sustainable cause of action against the excipient. The duties pleaded by the plaintiff are statutorily allocated and cannot be imposed on the employer under COIDA. Section 35(1) of COIDA expressly excludes employer liability for damages arising from occupational injuries, and the plaintiff's remedy lies within the compensation mechanisms of COIDA, not in a common law damages claim. The Apportionment of Damages Act does no…
Source excerpt
Explore more
