The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling against Bidvest Protea Coin Security (Pty) Ltd, confirming its full liability for the severe injury suffered by security guard Mandla Wellem Mabena during a strike at the Wonderfontein mine in Mpumalanga.
The court ruled on 26 March 2024, following a complex legal battle that raised critical questions about the grounds for appeal and the requirements for reconsideration of judicial decisions.Â
The background to this judgement stems from an incident on 4 April 2016, when Mabena, a member of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU), participated in a peaceful protest during a protected strike at the mine. Tensions escalated when a harvester, owned by a local farmer, entered the designated picketing area, prompting demonstrators to respond by throwing stones.
In the chaos, employees from Bidvest, responsible for the mine's security, allegedly fired rubber bullets into the crowd, striking Mabena in the eye and leading to the loss of his sight. In the aftermath, Mabena filed a lawsuit against Bidvest, seeking compensation for his injuries.
The trial court ruled that Bidvest was 100% liable for the injury caused, finding that the defence of 'sudden emergency' they attempted to invoke was inadequate. Bidvest's attempts to base its defence on 'necessity' were also dismissed due to procedural mistakes, notably not being formally pleaded prior to the trial.Â
The recent judgement at the Supreme Court of Appeal was not initially a simple matter of liability; it delved into the procedural complexities surrounding appeals and the conditions under which a case can be reconsidered by the court. Bidvest requested special leave to appeal the judgement but was met with rejection on multiple occasions, with judges affirming the finality of the lower court's ruling.
Central to the Supreme Court's deliberations was the interpretation of Section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. This section allows for reconsideration of judicial decisions only under exceptional circumstances. The ruling outlined that the definition of 'exceptional circumstances' serves as a jurisdictional fact that must be met before any further consideration of the appeal could occur. The court affirmed that the grounds Bidvest provided did not satisfy this stringent standard.
It ruled that no substantial evidence of exceptional circumstances was presented by Bidvest, leading to a definitive conclusion that there would be no grounds to overturn the prior findings of liability. As a result, Bidvest was ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mabena in opposing the application for reconsideration.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
