In Sophia Bent v Rand Mutual Assurance (Pty) Ltd, the High Court (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) overturned a tribunal decision that refused compensation for an injury sustained by an employee while leaving her workplace. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993 (COIDA) must be interpreted in a manner that advances its protective objectives. The Court confirmed that the scope of the phrase “arising out of and in the course of employment” should not be narrowly construed, particularly where the employee was still within the employer’s premises or engaged in activities reasonably incidental to her employment.
Ms Bent was employed as a credit clerk at her employer’s premises, a multi-storey building used for business purposes. On 27 July 2022, at approximately 17:00, after completing her work for the day, she proceeded to exit the building via the staircase, as the lift was out of order. While descending the stairs from the second floor, she slipped and fractured her ankle.
Her employer submitted a claim under section 22 of COIDA, which Rand Mutual repudiated on the basis that the incident did not fall within the statutory definition of an “accident” arising out of and in the course of employment. An objection was lodged, but the tribunal upheld the repudiation, finding that the accident was not sufficiently connected to her employment.
The appeal turned on the interpretation of the phrase “arising out of and in the course of employment” in COIDA’s definition of an accident. The central question was whether the tribunal was correct in concluding that Ms Bent’s injury did not arise out of her employment, notwithstanding that it occurred at the workplace while she was leaving the premises.
The judgment emphasised COIDA’s character as social legislation and reiterated the well-established principle that it must be interpreted purposively rather than restrictively, particularly where a more employee-favourable interpretation is reasonably available. The Court referred to authority recognising that COIDA establishes a no-fault compensation system for work-related injuries, while simultaneously limiting common law claims against employers, reflecting an intention to achieve a legislative balance between employee protection and employer liability.
In addressing the “arising out of” requirement, the Court surveyed decisions dealing with accidents during travel, accidents occurring in the vicinity of the workplace when employees are arriving or leaving the premises, and incidents that take place during working hours but lack sufficient connection to employment related-risks. Against this framework, the Court found that Ms Bent’s circumstances fell squarely within the second category: an employee who had completed her work but remained within the employer’s premises while making her exit.
Applying a contextual and purposive interpretation of COIDA, the Court held that the injury arose out of Ms Bent’s employment. The act of moving from her workstation to the exit, on the employer’s premises, was sufficiently closely connected to the employment relationship. The risk of slipping on workplace stairs was described as inherent in, and incidental to, ordinary employment conditions, particularly in a building where employees are required to move between floors. The Court cautioned that adopting a contrary interpretation would undermine COIDA's protective purpose and unjustifiably narrow the scope of the statutory protection the Act is intended to provide.
The appeal succeeded. The tribunal’s decision and the earlier repudiation were set aside, and the Court declared that Ms Bent is entitled to compensation under section 22(1) of COIDA.
