South Africa Case Law

Truworths v Chief Inspector Occupational Health and Safety, Department of Employment and Labour and Another (J1597/21)

Truworths v Chief Inspector Occupational Health and Safety, Department of Employment and Labour and Another (J1597/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 108; (2025) 46 ILJ 1426 (LC); [2025] 8 BLLR 853 (LC) (7 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1597/21

Judge

S Snyman

The Labour Court upheld Truworths’ appeal, set aside two OHSA contravention notices, and held that the inspectors had not been properly certificated under section 28(2).

• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Facilities Regulations
• Reasonably Practicable
• Designation Of Inspectors
• Contravention Notices
• Appeal Procedure

Matthys v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (Ex tempore) (2025-019481)

Matthys v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (Ex tempore) (2025-019481) [2025] ZAGPPHC 269 (26 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-019481

Judge

Yende

The court found that the applicant had met the threshold for urgency under Rule 6(12) due to the immediate risk to health and safety posed by the instruction to occupy a building that is severely damaged and non-compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence that the building was safe or habitable. The applicant's constitutional rights to dignity, life, privacy, and a healthy working environment were at risk of being infringed. The court condoned the procedural non-compliance in the interest of justice and granted interim relief to pr…

Source excerpt

• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Interdict
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Constitutional Right To Dignity
• Interim Relief

UASA - Union v Anglo American Platinum Limited and Others (Leave to Appeal) (J400/23)

UASA - Union v Anglo American Platinum Limited and Others (Leave to Appeal) (J400/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 371 (27 September 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J400/23

Judge

B J Dikotla

The Labour Court granted leave to appeal in a dispute over whether MHSA or OHSA applies, finding the case raises an important point of law and public interest.

• Mine Health And Safety Act
• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Leave To Appeal
• Fundamental Right To Health
• Leave-to-appeal

TC Smelters (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (006097/2022)

TC Smelters (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (006097/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 493 (23 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

006097/2022

Judge

Nyathi

The High Court held that TC Smelters’ operations remained subject to the Mine Health and Safety Act and dismissed its bid for a declarator with costs.

• Mine Health And Safety Act
• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Statutory Interpretation
• Exemption Application
• Non Joinder
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

UASA Union v Anglo American Platinum Limited and Others (J400/23)

UASA Union v Anglo American Platinum Limited and Others (J400/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 199; (2024) 45 ILJ 1851 (LC) (10 May 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J400/23

Judge

B J Dikotla

The Court found that the Retained Operations of the First and Second Respondents do not constitute a 'mine' or 'mining area' as defined by the MHSA, since they process metal concentrate that does not occur naturally in or on the earth and are not incidental to mining operations. The operations are distinct, ring-fenced industrial activities that do not require mining rights or permits under the MPRDA. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief regarding MHSA, but lacks jurisdiction over OHSA matters. The application for a declaration that MHSA applies to the Retained Operat…

Source excerpt

• Mine Health And Safety Act
• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Statutory Interpretation
• Declaratory Relief

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

Khabu and Others v Matlosana City Council and Others (56948/2014)

Khabu and Others v Matlosana City Council and Others (56948/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 54 (1 February 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56948/2014

Judge

Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The court found that the City Council, through its employee Breedt, was responsible for the safety of the excavation and failed to ensure compliance with statutory regulations requiring shoring or sloping of deep trenches. The omission to implement safety measures and the act of permitting or instructing workers to enter a dangerous excavation constituted wrongful and negligent conduct. The causal link between the omission and the death of the deceased was established, as the collapse of the trench was the precise harm the regulations sought to prevent. Vicarious liability attached to the Cit…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Wrongful Omission
• Negligence
• Loss Of Support
• Construction Regulations

National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) obo Members Providing Essential Services v Minister of Health and Others (J423/20)

National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) obo Members Providing Essential Services v Minister of Health and Others (J423/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 66; 2020 (6) BCLR 767 (LC); (2020) 41 ILJ 1724 (LC); [2020] 8 BLLR 788 (LC) (11 April 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J423/20

Judge

Whitcher

The Labour Court dismissed NEHAWU’s urgent Covid-19 PPE application, finding the union had not proved a PPE shortage, lack of engagement, or a basis for broader relief.

• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Urgent Interdict
• Meaningful Engagement
• Mandamus
• Disciplinary Action
• Costs Award

Intech Instruments v Transnet Limited t/a South African Port Operations (1165/18)

Intech Instruments v Transnet Limited t/a South African Port Operations (1165/18) [2019] ZASCA 79; [2019] 3 All SA 357 (SCA) (31 May 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1165/18

Judges

Majiedt, Dambuza, Mathopo, Makgoka, Plasket

The SCA held that this was a performance-specification construction contract, that Transnet’s safety-based stop-works orders were lawful, and dismissed Intech’s appeal.

• Construction Contracts
• Repudiation
• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Performance Specification
• Quantum Meruit
• Contract Cancellation

PSA obo Members v Minister of Health and Others (J3106/18)

PSA obo Members v Minister of Health and Others (J3106/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 345; [2019] 1 BLLR 71 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 193 (LC) (12 October 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J3106/18

Judge

A van Niekerk

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction as a court of first instance to enforce general obligations under section 8 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Section 158(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act does not confer jurisdiction to enforce employment laws unless expressly provided by statute. The enforcement mechanisms under the OHSA are reserved for inspectors and appellate review, not for direct intervention by the Labour Court. Relief against parties who are not the employer under the OHSA cannot be granted, as the statutory obligations are limited to the employer-employee relationship. T…

Source excerpt

• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Enforcement Of Employment Law
• Employer Duties
• Urgent Interdict