Source: http://docplayer.net/21306765-Reserved-judgment-delivered-on-29-january-2008-i-shall-in-this-matter-refer-to-the-parties-as-plaintiff-and-defendant.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-24 12:22:30
Document Index: 349924650

Matched Legal Cases: ['Case no: 13452', 'CASE NO: 389', 'CASE NO: 389', 'Case No: 439', 'Case No: 4338', 'Case no: 756']

RESERVED JUDGMENT Delivered on: 29 January I shall in this matter refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant. - PDF
RESERVED JUDGMENT Delivered on: 29 January I shall in this matter refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant.
Download "RESERVED JUDGMENT Delivered on: 29 January 2008. I shall in this matter refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant."
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION 6236/2007 BERNICE VIOLET COLLINS PLAINTIFF versus SERCO INDUSTRIES (PTY) LTD DEFENDANT RESERVED JUDGMENT Delivered on: 29 January 2008 NTSHANGASE, J [1] This was an argument on a special plea. I shall in this matter refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant. In an action brought in her personal capacity and in a capacity as mother and natural guardian of minor children, the plaintiff claims an amount of R as damages as a result of the death of Clive Lesley Collins ( the deceased ) when he, within the course and scope of his employment with the defendant, was engulfed in flames caused by welding operations conducted by defendant s employee RD Manickum in a spray booth where he was, in a manner, as averred by plaintiff, in which the defendant and its employees in breach of defendant s obligations in terms of the implied terms of a contract of employment concluded orally, deliberately acted wrongfully and unlawfully, alternatively negligently as described in plaintiff s pleadings. 1
2 [2] The defendant has raised a special plea and prayed for dismissal of the action with reference to section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, No. 130 of 1993, ( the Act ) which provides as follows: No action shall lie by an employee or any dependant of an employee for the recovery of damages in respect of any occupational injury or disease resulting in the disablement or death of such employee against such employee s employer, and no liability for compensation on the part of such employer shall arise save under the provisions of this Act in respect of such disablement or death. [3] I have been referred to various authorities including Kau v Fourie 1971(3) SA 623 (T) which was decided in terms of the provisions of section 7(a) of the repealed Workmen s Compensation Act, No. 30 of 1941 which contained provisions similar to those of section 35(1) of the Act. [4] There is no dispute that the deceased was the defendant s employee, that the plaintiff and the minor children, were dependants of the deceased and that the deceased s death was the result of an occupational injury. The latter touches on plaintiff s contention that it resulted from the wrongdoing of the defendant. [5] As Ms Naidoo for the plaintiff submitted, we are not dealing simply with a case that does not fall within the ambit of the Compensation Act. We are dealing with a case that does fall within the ambit, but that in addition to that she is entitled to institute a claim for the damages 2
3 against the employer on the basis of deliberate wrongdoing. As did the facts in Kau s case, the facts in this case do not take the matter out of the ambit of the Act. There is no distinction between the two cases. Those were her submissions. [6] In Kau an employee claimed damages for assault by his employer who was angered after the employer s vehicle driven by the employee was damaged in a collision. Viljoen J decided the case of Kau on the basis of an acceptance that the incident in that case was an accident which arose out of and in the course of a workman s employment and resulting in personal injury. Section 7(a) of the Workman s Compensation Act precluded liability of the employer as does section 35(1) of the Act, by reason of lack of causal connection between the incident and the employment. As pointed out by Mr Jeffrey, for the defendant, the court referred to and applied Minister of Justice v Khoza 1966(1) SA 410 (AD) where Rumpff JA (as he then was) postulated certain exceptions to section 7(a) of the Workmen s Compensation Act, without an attempt to trace them. [7] Ms Naidoo, for the plaintiff advanced the following proposition cited from Thompson and Benjamin, South African Labour Law, Vol 2 H1 35 : However, an employee is not prevented from claiming damages where the accident results from the deliberate wrongdoing of the employer. Mr Jeffrey cites this proposition as follows from Lawsa Vol 30, First Re issue para 288 at fn 12 : 3
4 Where however, an employee has been injured unlawfully, not by reason of the service relationship but by the wrongful and unlawful act of his employer, he may sue the latter at common law. [8] It is this, as submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff, which removes the case from the ambit of section 35(1) of the Act. Mr Jeffrey argued that whereas on the facts of Kau, the causal connection did not exist, in the present case it does and he pointed to the circumstances of the incident which have been explicitly pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case as follows: At all material times welding operations within the spray booth was the norm at the defendant s premises, alternatively a deliberate and standard practice authorised by Holscroft and Govender. Holscroft was the Managing Director of the defendant and Govender the Supervisor and Safety Officer of the defendant. [9] In my view, if one wilfully, wrongfully and unlawfully engulfed another in flames by engagement in welding operations in a spray booth, the fact that such an act is perpetrated where welding is normally done and is standard practice, would not affect the motive and would also not by itself absolve the perpetrator from liability. [10] The position as it appears to me from a reading of the plaintiff s pleadings postulates a position that while welding in the spray booth was the norm and standard practice, the deceased s engulfment in flames has its cause in that the defendant and its employees deliberately acted wrongfully and unlawfully as described in the 4
5 pleadings. That, in my view is an issue which I consider to be an exception proper to remove the act imputed to the defendant and its employees from the ambit of section 35(1) of the Act. In my view the interests of justice will be best served by the ventilation of the issue in court so that the motive, if any, of the defendant and its employees may be considered from the evidence before court, and in order to determine from such evidence whether or not the plaintiff s case in fact falls within that exception. [11] I accordingly make the following order: i) The determination of the issue raised in the special plea is deferred for oral evidence to be heard. ii) Costs are reserved. 5
6 Date of Hearing: 30 November 2007 Date of Judgment: 29 January 2008 Counsel for the plaintiff: Instructed by: Adv LR Naidoo Jay Reddy Attorneys Counsel for the first defendant: Adv AG Jeffrey Instructed by: Carl Van der Merwe & Associates 6
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: 19359/11 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED: In
H.M. MUSI, JP et HANCKE, J. [1] This is an appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate s. Court, Welkom. The appellant had instituted action against
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case No.: 201/2007 ROBIN GERALDINE GRIESEL and LENRé LIEBENBERG CORAM: H.M. MUSI, JP et HANCKE, J JUDGMENT:
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: 10831/12 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: In
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between:- EDDIE SITHOLE Case No.
CASE NO.: A 164/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA In the matter between: CECILIE NDJOZE MENASON MARENGA FIRST APPLICANT SECOND APPLICANT and ADELHEID KAHEE (born HUAMBI) RESPONDENT CORAM: UNENGU, AJ Heard
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG Case no: 13452/2013 In the matter between: ITHALA DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED APPLICANT and MOHAMED HUSSEN WARSAME
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM : NAGALAND : MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA 39/2003 1.Mofida khatun. Wife of Monuruz Zaman Hazarika. 2. Md. Toufique Zaman Hazarika. Son of Monuruz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : WORKMEN S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 FAO No. 244/2010 DATE OF DECISION : 27th January, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : WORKMEN S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 FAO No. 244/2010 DATE OF DECISION : 27th January, 2014 SUSHIL GOYAL Through: Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate...Appellant VERSUS
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 756/14
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 756/14 BEFORE: B. Kalvin: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 14, 2014, at London Oral DATE OF DECISION: April 23, 2014 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2014 ONWSIAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable : Yes/No (EASTERN CAPE, BHISHO) CASE NO: 389/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable : Yes/No (EASTERN CAPE, BHISHO) CASE NO: 389/2008 Date heard: 23 March 2010 Delivered on: 30 July 2010 In the matter between: BOUDEWYN HOMBERG DE VRIES SMUTS
SUMMARY. Premier-Murphy, a joint venture v. CRC-Evans Pipeline International Ltd.
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 501/96 Premier-Murphy, a joint venture v. CRC-Evans Pipeline International Ltd. Right to sue; Jurisdiction, constitutional (territorial); Jurisdiction, Tribunal (right to sue); Legal
E SENATE BILL By: Senator Kelley Introduced and read first time: February, 0 Assigned to: Judicial Proceedings lr CF lr A BILL ENTITLED AN ACT concerning 0 Identity Fraud Crimes Restitution FOR the purpose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, MTHATHA) Case No: 439/98 Heard 02/02/2011 Delivered:06/05/2011
Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, MTHATHA) Case
Managing work attendance and productivity
making the law work for you! 2008 Managing work attendance and productivity International Labour Organisation Article 4 of the Termination of Employment Convention, 158 of 1982 provides that the employment
[1] This is an opposed application for a postponement of a trial. At the. conclusion of argument I made an order and indicated that I would furnish
Not reportable In the High Court of South Africa (Eastern Cape Division) (Grahamstown High Court) Case No 2599/06 Delivered: In the matter between ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Applicant (Defendant) and ADEL SUSAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.850 of 2012)
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.850 of 2012) Smt. T.S. Shylaja Appellant Versus Oriental Insurance Co. &
BERKS COUNTY LAW JOURNAL Jared M. Good, et al v. Todd M. Whitt, Et al. Vol Civil procedure: Summary Judgment; Negligent Entrustment.
62 JARED M. GOOD, Administrator of the ESTATE OF JAY R. GOOD, a/k/a JAY ROBERT GOOD, deceased, and as Trustee Ad Litem on behalf of all persons entitled to recover damages from the named Estate; JARED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN ESKOM HOLDINGS LIMITED. CHRISTIAAN FREDERICK MARTHINUS NIGRINI N.O.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- ESKOM HOLDINGS LIMITED Case No: 4338/2015 Applicant and CHRISTIAAN FREDERICK MARTHINUS NIGRINI N.O. Respondent
REINHOLD HASHETU NGHIKOFA. SHIVUTE CJ, MTAMBANENGWE AJA and O REGAN AJA APPEAL JUDGMENT. O REGAN AJA (SHIVUTE CJ and MTAMBANENGWE AJA concurring):
REPORTABLE CASE NO.: SA 53/2012 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAMIBIA In the matter between: REINHOLD HASHETU NGHIKOFA Appellant and CLASSIC ENGINES CC Respondent CORAM: SHIVUTE CJ, MTAMBANENGWE AJA and O REGAN
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG) Linda Erasmus Properties Enterprise (Pty) Ltd Applicant. Lucky Mhlongo First Respondent
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG) CASE NUMBER: J 1604/04 In the matter between: Linda Erasmus Properties Enterprise (Pty) Ltd Applicant and Lucky Mhlongo First Respondent The commission
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE C13093250 IAN DEANS Plaintiff v SOMERVILLE PLASTER PTY LTD Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: Magistrate B.R. Wright WHERE HELD: Melbourne DATE OF HEARING: 30 January
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 389/2011 In the matter between: G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (SA) (PTY)LTD Applicant and COMMISSIONER
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT COMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HOSPITALITY HOTEL DEVELOPMENTS (PTY) LTD Respondent
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case no: 756/10 COMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant and HOSPITALITY HOTEL DEVELOPMENTS (PTY) LTD Respondent Neutral citation:
Date of Release: March 5, 1992 No. C Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Date of Release: March 5, 1992 No. C902971 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE PLAINTIFF REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND: OF THE HONOURABLE
for leave to appeal refused.
SUMMARY REPORTABLE CASE NO.: CA 51/2005 LASARUS TUTU NOWASEB Applicant and THE STATE Respondent PARKER, J et SILUNGWE, AJ 2007 October 23 Criminal procedure Appeal Leave to appeal When application to be