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

From newsroom deadlines to the Bar, Rorisang Kgosana pursues a higher calling

June 13, 2026

Sexual harassment at work: Employer duties, liability and the rights of employees

June 12, 2026

Phumeza Shoba loses maintenance claim after court finds distorted picture of her finances

June 12, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • From newsroom deadlines to the Bar, Rorisang Kgosana pursues a higher calling
  • Sexual harassment at work: Employer duties, liability and the rights of employees
  • Phumeza Shoba loses maintenance claim after court finds distorted picture of her finances
  • Batohi cannot meddle with enquiry procedures after abandoning testimony, panel rules
  • Municipality liable for shutting down businesses in R18.6 million damages claim
  • Health Department ordered to repay doctor after unlawful R105,000 salary deduction
  • Intimidating parent ordered to remain 100 metres from Hendrik Louw Primary School
  • Our silent shame: Why South Africans must pay heed to elder abuse
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

Sexual harassment at work: Employer duties, liability and the rights of employees

June 12, 2026

Health Department ordered to repay doctor after unlawful R105,000 salary deduction

June 12, 2026

Large animal client connections at heart of Mossel Bay vet’s restraint of trade drama

June 11, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 7   +   3   =  

Subscribe to our newsletter:
Top Posts

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

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

June 2, 2025
Don't Miss
Special Reports
13 Mins Read

From newsroom deadlines to the Bar, Rorisang Kgosana pursues a higher calling

By Kennedy MudzuliJune 13, 202613 Mins Read

From late-night newsroom shifts to taking the oath as an advocate, Rorisang Kgosana’s journey is a story of resilience, loss, motherhood and an unwavering commitment to making a difference.

Sexual harassment at work: Employer duties, liability and the rights of employees

June 12, 2026

Phumeza Shoba loses maintenance claim after court finds distorted picture of her finances

June 12, 2026

Batohi cannot meddle with enquiry procedures after abandoning testimony, panel rules

June 12, 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

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
OUR PICKS

Agricultural advisors declared scientists in landmark Labour Court ruling

February 17, 2026

FSCA imposes R5.39 million in penalties on financial services firms

June 5, 2026

Standard Bank should have investigated mental health concerns before dismissal, CCMA finds

June 10, 2026
© 2026 Conviction.
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

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