- The Mpumalanga High Court found the fatal leopard attack at Kruger’s staff quarters was not linked to the father’s job, allowing a damages claim against SanParks.
- The court ruled the incident was not an occupational injury under COIDA, as it was unrelated to the father’s work duties.
- The decision confirms employers cannot use COIDA to block damages claims for tragedies unrelated to actual work.
The Mpumalanga High Court has ruled that the tragic death of a young boy, killed by a leopard at the Kruger National Park’s Malelane Camp staff quarters, was not connected to his father’s employment with SanParks. As a result, the court found the incident does not qualify as an occupational injury under the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA).
The first plaintiff, who worked for SanParks, lived at the Malelane Camp staff quarters with his wife (the second plaintiff) and their minor son as a condition of his employment. In 2021, their child was attacked and killed by a wild leopard at the staff quarters. The parents sued SanParks for damages, including funeral expenses and compensation for psychological trauma.
SanParks opposed the claim, arguing that because the father resided at the staff quarters as part of his employment, the death was an occupational injury. Under section 35(1) of COIDA, an employee is generally barred from suing an employer for occupational injuries and must instead claim compensation from the Compensation Commissioner.
The court’s reasoning
Acting Judge Zodwa Gumede dismissed SanParks’ special plea, finding that the incident could not be classified as an occupational injury. Central to her decision was the legal test of whether the incident was sufficiently connected or incidental to the employee’s work duties.
Gumede concluded that it was not, writing:
“I cannot fathom how the killing of a child by an animal is in any way incidental to the first plaintiff’s employment.”
She held that COIDA applies only where the injury arises out of and in the course of employment. Being on the employer’s premises at the time of the incident is not sufficient.
Gumede drew on legal precedents, including MEC for Health, Free State v DN, De Gee v Transnet, and Churchill v Premier of Mpumalanga, to underscore that there is no “bright-line” rule and that courts must closely analyse whether an accident truly arose out of employment.
Inconsistency in SanParks’ defence
The court also noted the inconsistency of SanParks raising the COIDA defence only against the father’s claim and not the mother’s, even though she was a dependent of the employee.
Section 35(1) of COIDA states that neither an employee nor their dependents can sue an employer for damages relating to an occupational injury. Gumede reasoned that if SanParks truly believed the incident was an occupational injury, both parents should have been barred from suing. “This inconsistency undermines the very foundation of the defendant’s special plea,” she said.
Outcome and implications
Gumede ruled that the leopard attack, while occurring at SanParks premises, was unrelated to the employee’s work duties and therefore not covered by COIDA. The court dismissed the special plea, allowing the parents’ damages claim to proceed to trial.
The ruling affirms that employers cannot hide behind COIDA when a tragedy happens on their premises but is unrelated to an employee’s actual work. The case is a significant reminder that the scope of COIDA is not defined by geography alone, but by whether the harm suffered was incidental to the employee’s duties.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
