The Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) requires the state’s Compensation Commissioner to compensate employees for losses resulting from workplace injuries.
This applies when an injury complies with the legal definition. Some employers also acquire workplace injury cover from private insurance companies. However, these companies sometimes reject claims and create unnecessary workplace slip-ups for employees seeking compensation.
Understanding the meaning of “in the course of employment”
In the case of Sophia Bent vs Rand Mutual Assurance (PTY) LTD (SAFLII 9 December 2025, High Court case no: A120/2025), Bent had knocked off from work. While descending the stairs, she slipped and injured her ankle.
Her employer submitted a workplace injury claim to its insurer, Rand Mutual Assurance. However, the insurer rejected the claim because it believed that “Bent had not been injured during the course of her employment”. Bent then took the matter to the High Court. The court considered the issue more broadly than the insurance company had done.
The court cited the finding in De Gee vs Transnet SOC Ltd (ZAGPJHC 2; 2020 (2) SA 488 (GJ) (29 January 2019). In that matter, the High Court had stated several years earlier that “… a workman is acting in the course of his employment when he is …. doing something in discharge of a duty to his employer, directly or indirectly, imposed upon him by his contract of service.”
Lessons for employers and employees
Every employee has an implied contractual duty to vacate the employer’s premises after finishing work. That was precisely what Bent was doing when she sustained her injury. The court adopted a broad interpretation of the phrase “in the course of employment”. Consequently, it ordered the insurance company to pay the employee full compensation for her injury and to cover her legal costs.
The judgment demonstrates how narrow interpretations can create workplace slip-ups and deprive employees of their rightful benefits. All those involved in the workplace need to understand the true meaning of workplace laws. They must avoid the pitfalls that arise when they adopt narrow definitions.
Misunderstanding legal obligations often leads to workplace slip-ups, unnecessary litigation and unfair outcomes for injured employees.
Ivan Israelstam | Chief Executive | Labour Law Management Consulting | mail me |
This is frustrating to me as it has affected my medical benefits resulting in unpaid leave