South Africa Case Law

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

Paynter's Hardware CC v Chauke (34918/2021)

Paynter's Hardware CC v Chauke (34918/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 225 (8 April 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34918/2021

Judge

E van der Schyff

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.

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Occupational Injury
• Compensation For Injuries
• Statutory Bar To Common Law Claims
• Exception-to-particulars-of-claim
• Coida

Skorbinski v Bezuidenhout t/a DB Transport (1935/08)

Skorbinski v Bezuidenhout t/a DB Transport (1935/08) [2009] ZAECPEHC 14; 2009 (5) SA 461 (ECP); (2009) 30 ILJ 2847 (ECP) (5 May 2009)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1935/08

Judge

Chetty

The court held that section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act unequivocally precludes an employee from instituting a damages claim against the employer for occupational injuries. The plaintiff's attempt to frame his claim as delictual does not circumvent the statutory bar. Any delay by the employer in reporting the accident does not convert the claim into a common law action. The plaintiff's remedy lies exclusively within the statutory compensation scheme, and the particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action outside the Act. Accordingly, the except…

Source excerpt

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
• Statutory Bar To Common Law Claims
• Exception Procedure

Mankayi v Anglogold Ashanti Limited (06/22312)

Mankayi v Anglogold Ashanti Limited (06/22312) [2008] ZAGPHC 420 (26 June 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

06/22312

Judge

Joffe

The court held that section 35(1) of COIDA is clear and unequivocal in barring any action for damages by an employee against the employer in respect of occupational injury or disease, including those compensatable under ODIMWA. The legislative history demonstrates that both COIDA and ODIMWA form a comprehensive statutory compensation regime for mineworkers, and there is no rational basis for treating claims under ODIMWA differently. The maxim generalia specialibus non derogant does not apply because the legislative intention is manifestly clear. Constitutional arguments regarding equality and…

Source excerpt

• Occupational Diseases
• Statutory Bar To Common Law Claims
• Compensation For Injuries
• Silicosis
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Statutory Interpretation