South Africa Case Law

Marasi v Petroleum, Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Ltd (C219/2020)

Marasi v Petroleum, Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Ltd (C219/2020) [2023] ZALCCT 38; [2023] 10 BLLR 1043 (LC); (2023) 44 ILJ 2261 (LC) (27 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C219/2020

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court held that PetroSA’s substance-abuse policy was a lawful safety measure and dismissed claims of cultural discrimination and unfair labour practice.

• Unfair Discrimination
• Employment Equity Act
• Inherent Requirements Of Job
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Medical Testing
• Workplace Safety

Clementz v Millbo Paper CC and Others (27096/2019)

Clementz v Millbo Paper CC and Others (27096/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 43; [2021] 2 All SA 774 (GJ); [2021] 7 BLLR 728 (GJ); 2021 (4) SA 186 (GJ) ; (2021) 42 ILJ 1796 (GJ) (19 March 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

27096/2019

Judge

Gilbert

The High Court dismissed an exception against a workplace-injury claim, holding that it could not decide on the pleadings alone whether the injury arose out of employment under COIDA.

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Exclusion Of Common Law Claims
• Negligence
• Statutory Interpretation
• Exception Procedure
• Workplace Safety

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1372/14)

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1372/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 110 (13 March 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1372/14

Judge

S Snyman

The court found that the arbitrator's award was grossly irregular and unreasonable. The arbitrator failed to properly consider the evidence, including the fourth respondent's training, knowledge of safety rules, and her admissions regarding the lack of risk assessment and unauthorized work. The arbitrator misconstrued documentary evidence about the issuance of PPE and ignored critical facts. The court held that the misconduct was serious, involving multiple breaches of safety regulations, and that the employer's zero tolerance approach was justified given the operational risks. The inconsiste…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Workplace Safety
• Consistency In Discipline
• Zero Tolerance Policy

Joubert v Buscor Proprietary Limited (2013/13116)

Joubert v Buscor Proprietary Limited (2013/13116) [2016] ZAGPJHC 340 (9 December 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/13116

Judge

Siwendu

The court held that section 9(1) of OHSA imposes a statutory duty of care on employers towards persons other than employees, including subcontractors and the public. The wording of the section is broad and covers foreseeable third parties affected by the employer's activities. The court found that OHSA, together with Regulation 5, hard-wires both the duty and the standard of care, and that liability flows directly from a breach of these statutory duties. The statutory scheme creates strict liability, meaning that the employer is liable for harm resulting from a breach of the prescribed standa…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Strict Liability
• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Duty Of Care
• Vicarious Liability
• Workplace Safety

Joubert v Buscor Proprietary Limited (2013/13116)

Joubert v Buscor Proprietary Limited (2013/13116) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1024 (9 December 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2013/13116

Judge

Siwendu

The court held that section 9(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) imposes a statutory duty of care on employers not only towards employees but also towards third parties, including subcontractors and the public. The wording of OHSA is sufficiently broad to encompass persons such as the deceased, who was an employee of a subcontractor. The court found that OHSA imposes both a duty and a standard of care in absolute terms, and that liability flows directly from a breach of this duty and standard, resulting in strict liability. The respondent's argument that negligence must be pr…

Source excerpt

• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Strict Liability
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Duty Of Care
• Vicarious Liability
• Workplace Safety

Industrial Health Resource Group and Others v Minister of Labour and Others (74793/2013)

Industrial Health Resource Group and Others v Minister of Labour and Others (74793/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 555; [2015] 4 All SA 78 (GP); (2015) 36 ILJ 2547 (GP) (7 August 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74793/2013

Judge

K E Matojane

The High Court held that interested parties may request section 32 OHSA inquiry reports and struck down the Department of Labour’s blanket refusal policy.

• Occupational Health And Safety
• Access To Information
• Statutory Interpretation
• Constitutional Rights
• Workplace Safety
• Occupational-health-and-safety

Kruger v Carlton Paper of South Africa (Pty) Ltd (304/2000)

Kruger v Carlton Paper of South Africa (Pty) Ltd (304/2000) [2001] ZASCA 97; [2002] 2 All SA 351 (A); 2002 (2) SA 335 (SCA) (30 November 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

304/2000

Judges

Marais, Scott, Cameron, Mthiyane, Brand

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the employer was not negligent when a qualified electrician was injured by a live terminal in a restricted enclosure.

• Negligence
• Culpa Test
• Foreseeability
• Workplace Safety
• Contributory Negligence
• Workplace-safety