Skip to content
Close Menu
ConvictionConviction
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

What's Hot

Void or invalid body corporate meetings: CSOS remedies for sectional title disputes

September 18, 2026

While Ekurhuleni investigation continues, police probe other abduction and missing women cases

September 18, 2026

Father asks court to terminate mother’s parental rights so he and his wife can adopt child

September 18, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • Void or invalid body corporate meetings: CSOS remedies for sectional title disputes
  • While Ekurhuleni investigation continues, police probe other abduction and missing women cases
  • Father asks court to terminate mother’s parental rights so he and his wife can adopt child
  • Ex-Emfuleni CFO ordered to pay for calling supply chain manager corrupt on WhatsApp
  • Employer found to have unfairly dismissed a sick accounts manager instead of accommodating her
  • Husband sends agents to seize Mercedes from estranged wife during bitter divorce battle
  • SCA clears SAPS captain as new forensic evidence dismantles murder conviction
  • South Africa must stop counting the bodies and start preventing the next one
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
ConvictionConviction
Sonneblom
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch
ConvictionConviction
Home » Wrong hearing loss compensation formula costs Rand Mutual dearly
Labour Law

Wrong hearing loss compensation formula costs Rand Mutual dearly

High Court rules formula used by Rand Mutual short-changed injured mineworker.
Kennedy MudzuliBy Kennedy MudzuliApril 29, 2026No Comments
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
  • High Court finds Rand Mutual underpaid a mineworker by incorrectly calculating compensation for hearing loss.
  • The court ruled that compensation caps apply to the payout, not to a worker’s earnings.
  • Rand Mutual ordered to pay an extra R110 616, plus costs and interest.

The High Court in Johannesburg has ruled that Rand Mutual underpaid a mineworker by using the incorrect formula to calculate compensation for his occupational injury.

The court found that Rand Mutual Assurance wrongly reduced André Derick Knoetze’s earnings before calculating his compensation, which resulted in him being underpaid.

Judge WJ du Plessis explained that the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) sets a limit on the amount of compensation, but does not put a cap on a worker’s earnings used for the calculation.

Knoetze was awarded an extra R110 616, plus interest, and Rand Mutual was ordered to cover his legal costs for the 2024 tribunal proceedings.

For almost 30 years, André Derick Knoetze endured the relentless noise of South Africa’s gold mines. Over time, the constant exposure damaged his hearing and ultimately forced him to leave his job underground.

After being medically boarded in 2019, Knoetze sought help from the compensation system designed to protect workers who are injured or disabled while working. The battle was not about whether he deserved compensation, but about how much he should receive.

Judge WJ du Plessis, with Acting Judge Ben Zeev agreeing, delivered a judgment that favoured Knoetze. The court found that Rand Mutual Assurance Company Limited had incorrectly calculated the compensation he was owed under the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act.

Knoetze’s claim was based on hearing loss caused by work-related noise, which was accepted as resulting in 19 percent permanent disablement according to COIDA. Rand Mutual awarded him a lump sum of R191 064, but Knoetze argued that he was entitled to the statutory maximum of R301 680.

How the dispute arose

The main question before the court was how Schedule 4 of COIDA should be interpreted when calculating lump-sum compensation for workers with permanent disablement of less than 30 per cent. Should compensation be based on a worker’s actual monthly earnings, with the statutory maximum applied at the end, or should the earnings be reduced before the formula is used?

Rand Mutual chose the second approach. Although Knoetze’s monthly earnings at the time of disablement were R56 404.78, Rand Mutual replaced this with R20 112—a figure calculated by dividing the statutory maximum compensation of R301 680 by 15. Using this reduced amount, they calculated his award as R191 064.

Judge Du Plessis found that Rand Mutual’s method was legally incorrect. He wrote, “The words ‘subject to’ adjust the outcome of the calculation; they do not change what counts as earnings or create a separate, lower ‘earnings ceiling’.”

The court ruled that Section 63 of COIDA requires the employee’s actual earnings to be calculated first and used in the compensation formula. Only after this figure is determined can the statutory minimum or maximum compensation be applied.

Judge Du Plessis stated, “The only maximum that Section 49(1)(a), as read with the 2018 Schedule, sets in this context is a limit on the compensation that may be paid.”

He added, “The statute does not allow the cap to be applied to earnings themselves by substituting a notional ‘maximum earnings’ figure for the actual earnings.”

Court orders additional payment

Using the correct interpretation, the court found that Knoetze’s provisional lump sum exceeded the statutory ceiling, meaning he qualified for the full maximum compensation of R301 680.

Since Rand Mutual had already paid R191 064, the court ordered them to pay the outstanding R110 616, plus interest at the prescribed rate from 11 December 2023 until the payment date. The court also ordered Rand Mutual to cover Knoetze’s costs for the 2024 objection proceedings before the tribunal.

Judge Du Plessis concluded, “That is the fundamental error at the heart of this appeal, and the reason why it must succeed.”

Conviction.co.za

Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

COIDA Compensation claims High Court Labour law Occupational injury
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Telegram Email
Kennedy Mudzuli

Multiple award-winner with passion for news and training young journalists. Founder and editor of Conviction.co.za

Related Posts

Employer found to have unfairly dismissed a sick accounts manager instead of accommodating her

September 18, 2026

Employee sought medical advice not to be vaccinated for COVID-19, but still got fired

September 17, 2026

Smoke breaks do not become authorised because supervisors know about them

September 17, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 1   +   6   =  

Subscribe to our newsletter:
Top Posts

Your driving licence at the gate: What estates can actually legally scan

Sponsor: My Estate LifeSeptember 6, 2026

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024
Don't Miss
Sectional Title Law
3 Mins Read

Void or invalid body corporate meetings: CSOS remedies for sectional title disputes

By Ashwini SinghSeptember 18, 20263 Mins Read

A practical guide to the CSOS remedies available when body corporate meetings are improperly convened or resolutions are void or invalid.

While Ekurhuleni investigation continues, police probe other abduction and missing women cases

September 18, 2026

Father asks court to terminate mother’s parental rights so he and his wife can adopt child

September 18, 2026

Ex-Emfuleni CFO ordered to pay for calling supply chain manager corrupt on WhatsApp

September 18, 2026
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
Demo
About Us
About Us

Helping South Africans to navigate the legal landscape; providing accessible legal information; and giving a voice to those seeking justice.

Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube WhatsApp Twitch RSS
Latest posts

Your driving licence at the gate: What estates can actually legally scan

Sponsor: My Estate LifeSeptember 6, 2026

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024
OUR PICKS

Sea Point building plans declared unlawful, but luxury apartment development will continue

September 9, 2026

ConCourt rules KZN government has the final say on removing traditional leaders

September 11, 2026

NUMSA ordered to pay member R132,000 after abandoning Labour Court review

September 14, 2026
© 2026 Conviction.
  • Home
  • Buy Now
  • Law & Justice

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Powered by
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by