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.
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
Ndala v Minister of Education and Others (51706/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 387 (5 September 2019)
The court found that the plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment as an educator at a public school. The injury, though caused by a criminal act (stabbing by a learner), constitutes an occupational injury as defined by COIDA. Section 35(11) of COIDA expressly precludes any action for damages against the employer in respect of such injuries, providing compensation only under the Act. The plaintiff's argument that the injury was not occupational was rejected, as the statutory definition encompasses injuries arising from criminal acts during employment. The court held that neither t…
Source excerpt
Msiza v Asolutiona t/a Advocate Solutions (Pty) Ltd (15790/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1070 (10 June 2019)
High Court held that a workplace dog attack on an intern arose out of employment, barring a damages claim under section 35(1) of COIDA.
De Gee v Transnet SOC Ltd (30085/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 2; 2020 (2) SA 488 (GJ) (29 January 2019)
The High Court held that COIDA did not bar a claim by an employee injured in a lift before work, because the stated facts did not prove he was acting in the course of employment.
Dhladhla v Road Accident Fund (2013/09477) [2014] ZAGPJHC 212 (5 September 2014)
The court found that section 19(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, read together with section 35(1) of the Compensation of Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, precludes a claim against the Road Accident Fund where the injury sustained by the plaintiff is an occupational injury and the wrongdoer is the employer. The statutory framework is clear and unambiguous: an employee injured in the course and scope of employment, where the employer is the driver and wrongdoer, cannot claim against the Fund. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding legislative ambiguity and the applicabil…
Source excerpt
Van De Venter v MEC of Education: Free State Province (3545/2010) [2012] ZAFSHC 185 (4 October 2012)
The court found that the applicant's claim for delictual damages against her employer was barred by section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, which provides an exclusive statutory remedy for occupational injuries. The applicant's injuries, sustained during the course of her employment as a result of a criminal act, constituted an occupational injury as defined by the Act. The applicant's delay in giving statutory notice was not justified by her explanations, and her proposed action had no prospects of success. Even if section 35 did not apply, the facts did no…
Source excerpt
Spies v National Commissioner of South African Police Service and Others (J173/08) [2008] ZALC 12; (2008) 29 ILJ 2022 (LC) (6 February 2008)
The Labour Court dismissed an urgent bid to reinstate a police employee’s salary and benefits, finding no prima facie right and no basis to bypass bargaining-council procedures.
Road Accident Fund v Monjane (295/06) [2007] ZASCA 57; [2007] 4 All SA 987 (SCA) ; 2010 (3) SA 641 (SCA); (2007) 28 ILJ 2516 (SCA) (18 May 2007)
The SCA held that an employee injured in the course of employment cannot claim from the RAF where the employer-driver caused the accident and COIDA excludes delictual liability.
Explore more
