South Africa Case Law

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

Oudehoutlkloof Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Others v Venter (1649/2018)

Oudehoutlkloof Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Others v Venter (1649/2018) [2021] ZAECGHC 85 (16 September 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1649/2018

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that although Casper Venter acted for his own interests and committed intentional fraud, the defendant's business structure and delegation of authority created the risk and opportunity for the wrongful acts. The employment relationship went beyond providing a mere opportunity; it facilitated the fraud. The defendant's implicit trust in Casper and lack of oversight placed the plaintiffs in a vulnerable position. Applying the developed common law and constitutional principles, the court held that there was a sufficiently close link between Casper's wrongful acts and the defendan…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Intentional Torts
• Fraud
• Scope Of Employment
• Development Of Common Law

Stallion Security (Pty) Limited v Van Staden (526/2018)

Stallion Security (Pty) Limited v Van Staden (526/2018) [2019] ZASCA 127; (2019) 40 ILJ 2695 (SCA); 2020 (1) SA 64 (SCA) (27 September 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

526/2018

Judges

Leach, Mbha, Dambuza, Van der Merwe, Hughes

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Stallion Security (Pty) Limited is vicariously liable for the loss of support suffered by Ms Van Staden. Although Mr Khumalo committed the murder for his own purposes, Stallion Security created a material risk by granting him special access and responsibilities, including the override key and intimate knowledge of the premises. These powers enabled Mr Khumalo to commit the robbery and murder. Stallion undertook a contractual duty to protect Bidvest staff, including the deceased, and placed Mr Khumalo in charge of this responsibility. The court found a suf…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Loss Of Support
• Creation Of Risk
• Scope Of Employment
• Intentional Wrongdoing

Freddie Jaftha Transport CC v Group Five Plant and Equipment (Pty) Limited (39222/14)

Freddie Jaftha Transport CC v Group Five Plant and Equipment (Pty) Limited (39222/14) [2019] ZAGPJHC 76 (12 March 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

39222/14

Judge

L T Modiba

The High Court dismissed a damages claim after finding the plaintiff failed to prove the employee driver was acting within the course and scope of employment.

• Vicarious Liability
• Hearsay Evidence
• Scope Of Employment
• Motor Vehicle Collision
• Hearsay-evidence
• Vicarious-liability

Sonqishe v Willy Black Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Delmas Nissan (74042/2014)

Sonqishe v Willy Black Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Delmas Nissan (74042/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 962 (11 August 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74042/2014

Judge

H.J Fabricius

The court found that the applicant's evidence of payment via bank guaranteed cheques to the respondent's employees was undisputed and corroborated by documentary evidence. The respondent's defence, based on hearsay and unsupported allegations of fraud involving a third party, was rejected as implausible and inadmissible. The respondent was contractually obliged to deliver the vehicle or, upon cancellation, to repay the deposit. The respondent's failure to do so entitled the applicant to repayment with interest. The court further held that the respondent's conduct warranted a punitive costs or…

Source excerpt

• Contract Cancellation
• Deposit Repayment
• Inadmissible Hearsay
• Scope Of Employment

Mashudu v Unitrans Limited t/a Greyhound and Another (18952/10)

Mashudu v Unitrans Limited t/a Greyhound and Another (18952/10) [2014] ZAGPJHC 181 (15 August 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18952/10

Judge

Wepener

The High Court held that an employer was vicariously liable where its bus driver assaulted and insulted a passenger while on duty and engaged in company business.

• Vicarious Liability
• Scope Of Employment
• Assault By Employee
• Employer Liability
• Vicarious-liability
• Scope-of-employment

Strauss v Hilfort Plastics (Pty) Ltd and Another (4767/2007)

Strauss v Hilfort Plastics (Pty) Ltd and Another (4767/2007) [2011] ZAFSHC 61 (17 March 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4767/2007

Judge

Nxusani

The court found that the Second Defendant was employed to drive and was performing the very type of work required by the employer at the time of the collision. The lack of signage or written instructions prohibiting the transport of passengers, the employer's ratification of the conduct, and the absence of disciplinary action indicated that the employer accepted the risk associated with the employee's conduct. Applying the constitutional test for vicarious liability, the court held that there was a sufficiently close connection between the wrongful act and the employer's business. Even if the…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Negligence
• Scope Of Employment
• Ratification Of Employee Conduct

T Young t/a T Young Transport v Value Logistics Ltd (CA 230/09)

T Young t/a T Young Transport v Value Logistics Ltd (CA 230/09) [2010] ZAECGHC 10 (25 February 2010)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA 230/09

Judges

F Kroon, X M Boqwana

The court found that the respondent had established prima facie proof that Daniels was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the appellant at the time of the collision. This was based on admissions by the appellant regarding ownership of the vehicle and employment of Daniels, as well as the contents of the motor accident claim form, which indicated that Daniels was driving with permission, employed as a driver, and transporting goods for the appellant. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence to rebut or neutralise this proof, and the court held that such failure converted…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Motor Vehicle Collision
• Onus Of Proof
• Scope Of Employment

Etsebeth v Minister of Defence and Another (23698/2002)

Etsebeth v Minister of Defence and Another (23698/2002) [2009] ZAGPPHC 151 (20 November 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23698/2002

Judge

A P Ledwaba

The High Court held that the plaintiff’s helicopter flight was connected to his SANDF employment, so section 35 of COIDA barred his damages claim.

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Special Plea
• Scope Of Employment
• Statutory Bar
• Coida
• Occupational-injury

Gunter v Compensation Commissioner ((2009) 30 ILJ 2341 (O))

Gunter v Compensation Commissioner ((2009) 30 ILJ 2341 (O)) [2009] ZAFSHC 144; [2009] ZAFSHC 42 (5 March 2009)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A104/2008

Judges

Wright, Mocumie

The court found that the appellant was actively engaged in his employment duties at the time of the accident, fetching urgent spare parts for the combine during harvesting season. He exercised wide discretion in managing the farm and was not bound by fixed working hours or specific instructions regarding transportation. The accident did not occur while travelling to or from his workplace, but while performing work-related tasks. Section 22(5) of the Act was not applicable, as it only extends liability to employees being conveyed to or from their place of employment under defined circumstances…

Source excerpt

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Scope Of Employment
• Statutory Appeal
• Control Test
• Course And Scope
• Statutory Interpretation