Facts

Ms Sophia Bent (the employee) was employed by MacCarthy (Pty) Ltd (the employer) as a credit clerk, who worked on the third floor of the employer’s premises. On 27 July 2022, the employee was walking down the stairs while still inside building, having just finished work, when she slipped and fractured her ankle. The employer lodged a claim with RMA on behalf of the employee in line with the provisions of section 22 of COIDA. The claim was rejected by RMA on the basis that the employee was not performing her duties when she was injured and so the claim did not meet the requirement of an accident in terms of COIDA. The employer filed an objection arguing, inter alia, that the injury arose at the workplace and was therefore, an injury on duty. The objection was rejected and dismissed by the sitting tribunal. The employee brought an appeal before the High Court, seeking to appeal the decision of the tribunal.

Applicable law

Section 22 of COIDA gives employees the right to claim compensation if they are injured or die due to an accident at work or an illness contracted in the course and scope of employment.

Section 1 of COIDA requires an accident to arise out of and in the course of an employee’s employment which results in personal injury, illness or the death of the employee.

A successful claim under section 22 of COIDA requires proof that the employee’s injury was sustained both as a consequence of, and in the course of, their employment. This means that the accident must be sufficiently linked to the work environment or activities undertaken as part of the employment contract.

Application of law to the facts

The court had to determine whether the rejection of the claim and the reasons given by RMA and the tribunal were consistent with the law. In order words, the court had to determine whether the injury suffered by the employee fell within the statutory definition of an accident.

The court considered various case authorities that dealt with the interpretation of the relevant provisions of COIDA, and, in particular, the phrase “arising out of employment and in course and scope of employment”.

The court found that there had been conflicting judgments on these aspects.

COIDA provides compensation for employees who are injured in work-related accidents, or who contracted occupational diseases, on a ‘no fault’ basis. Both employer and employee benefit from this social legislation because the employer is relieved of the prospects of a costly damages claim while the employee does not have to prove that the employer’s negligence caused the accident or disease.

The court held that:

• COIDA must be interpreted in a manner that is favourable to employees.
• For purposes of COIDA, an accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment if the employee was acting in the interests of or in connection with the business of the employer at the time of the accident.
• The employee’s injury in this matter arose out of her employment because the action of coming and going away from her workstation was sufficiently and closely connected to her employment.
• The risk of sustaining an injury while walking between floors in the employer’s building was inherent and incidental to the employee’s normal duties as she was expected to “shuttle between floors” even though on this occasion she would be leaving the building to go home.

The court set aside the tribunal’s decision and substituted it with an order that the employee was entitled to compensation. The matter was referred back to RMA for a calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the employee and it was ordered to pay costs of the litigation.