Mafuyeka v Minister of Health and Others (2133/2022) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 118 (10 December 2025)

Case Note

Madala John Mafuyeka v Minister of Health and Others
Case No: 2133/2022
Date: 10 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it raises significant issues regarding the intersection of workplace injury claims and statutory provisions encapsulated in COIDA (Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act) and the Prescription Act. The judgment elucidates the principles governing the distinction between incidents occurring within and out of the scope of employment, setting a precedent for future claims of a similar nature. The decision also illuminates procedural obligations associated with bringing claims against organs of state, thereby contributing to the broader discourse on legal compliance for public service entities and the implications of delays in the context of prescription and legal proceedings.

Cases Cited

1. Prinsloo v MEC, Department of Education, Mpumalanga Province, (2022) 43 ILJ 2118 (MM)
2. Churchill v Premier of Mpumalanga and Another, (889/2019) [2021] ZASCA 16; [2021] 2 All SA 323 (SCA); 2021 (4) SA 422 (SCA) (4 March 2021)
3. MEC for Health, Free State v DN, 2015 (1) SA 182 (SCA)
4. President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Tembani and Others, (CCT 162/22) [2024] ZACC 5; 2024 (9) BCLR 1152 (CC); 2025 (2) SA 371 (CC) (6 May 2024)
5. Minister of Finance and Other v Gore N.O., 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA)
6. Mtokonya v Minister of Police, 2018 (5) SA 22 (CC)
7. Argent Industrial Investment (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, 2017 (3) SA 146 (GJ)
8. Aussenkehr Farms (Pty) Ltd v Trio Transport CC, [2002] 3 All SA 309 (A)

Legislation Cited

1. Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, No. 130 of 1993 (COIDA)
2. Prescription Act No. 68 of 1969
3. Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of the State Act, No. 40 of 2002

Rules of Court Cited

Not applicable in this case.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case addresses the claims of the Plaintiff, Madala John Mafuyeka, against his employer, the First Defendant, and other defendants for injuries sustained during an assault linked to his workplace. The court considers three special pleas from the Defendants: recourse being limited by COIDA, the claim being barred by prescription, and failure to comply with notice requirements as per the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of the State Act. The court ultimately dismisses the Plaintiff’s claims based on these considerations, emphasizing the statutory protections of employers under COIDA and the procedural requirements for claims against the state.

Key Issues

The key legal issues in this case include whether the Plaintiff's injury falls within the ambit of COIDA, the effect of prescription on the Plaintiff’s claim, and the consequences of the Plaintiff's alleged non-compliance with legislative notice requirements when suing an organ of state.

Held

The court held that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the provisions of COIDA as the injury occurred in the course of employment, that the claim had prescribed due to the Plaintiff's failure to institute the claim within the three-year period post-incident, and that the notice requirements as specified in the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of the State Act were not met. Consequently, the Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with costs.

THE FACTS

On 1 June 2014, while employed as a nurse at the Thulamahashe Community Health Centre, the Plaintiff was assaulted by an individual who blamed him for the death of a patient he had attempted to resuscitate. The Plaintiff subsequently brought a claim against his employer, seeking R10 million for negligence, emotional distress, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses. The Defendants raised three special pleas regarding COIDA applicability, the prescription of the claim, and procedural compliance with state litigation.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining whether the Plaintiff's claim was hindered by COIDA, given that the incident occurred during the course of employment, and whether the claim was barred by the expiration of the statutory period of prescription. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the Plaintiff provided valid notice of intention to sue as required by the relevant legislation.

ANALYSIS

The court's analysis began with the interpretation of COIDA provisions, particularly Section 35, which prohibits legal claims against employers in circumstances where injuries arise from occupational hazards. The court differentiated between injuries sustained during the course of employment and those that truly arise out of that employment, highlighting the principle that the injuries or assaults must be incidental to the employee's duties for claims to be valid under COIDA. Furthermore, the court evaluated the Plaintiff's arguments regarding interruptions to prescription in the context of acknowledgments of debt but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate these claims. The court emphasized the importance of actual knowledge of the debt and the necessity for timely notice under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Act.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims and upheld the Defendants' special plea regarding prescription, accordingly awarding costs to the Defendants. This dismissal reinforces the importance of complying with statutory requirements and demonstrates the ramifications of failing to adequately assert legal claims in a timely manner.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles established include the interpretation of COIDA with respect to employee claims, the conditions under which prescription may be interrupted or extended, and the necessity of complying with notice requirements when pursuing claims against organs of state. The court clarified that knowledge of the facts underpinning a claim triggers the start of the prescription period, irrespective of the Plaintiff's awareness of legal rights concerning the claim.