The recent case of Bent v Rand Mutual Assurance (Pty) Ltd (Appeal), decided on 9 December 2025 by the Gauteng Division, Pretoria High Court (A120/2025), sheds light on the interpretation of "arising out of and in the course of employment" under the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 (COIDA).
The case involved Ms. Bent, a credit clerk at McCarthy's Hatfield offices, a three-story commercial building. After completing her workday, Ms. Bent was descending the stairs due to a non-operational lift when she slipped on the second-floor staircase and fractured her ankle. Her employer submitted a claim for compensation to Rand Mutual Assurance in accordance with Section 22 of COIDA. However, the claim was initially rejected on the grounds that Ms. Bent was not actively performing her job duties at the time of the injury.
Following an objection, a tribunal upheld the repudiation, concluding that the accident lacked a sufficient connection to her employment. Ms. Bent subsequently appealed this tribunal decision, contending that her injury did, in fact, arise from and in the course of her employment, as stipulated by COIDA. The central question for the court was whether the incident met the statutory criteria of "arising out of and in the course of employment," thereby making her eligible for compensation under Section 22(1) of the Act.
The court examined various categories of cases, including those pertaining to injuries sustained during commuting, within workplace premises outside of working hours, and while actively engaged in employment duties. Precedents were analyzed to establish whether injuries incurred while an employee is in the process of leaving the workplace fall within the scope of employment. A crucial principle that emerged is that an employee's employment status is deemed to continue while they are traversing the employer's premises after their work is concluded, provided the accident occurs in an area accessible to them by virtue of their employment. The court found that the act of moving between floors and exiting the building was incidental to Ms. Bent's responsibilities, and the inherent risk of injury within the employer's premises was an integral part of her employment.
The court determined that the tribunal's restrictive interpretation undermined the fundamental objective of COIDA, which is to ensure compensation for injuries sustained in a work-related context. It was emphasized that the Act must be applied in a manner most favorable to employees. Notably, the employer's own stance supported Ms. Bent's claim. Consequently, both the initial repudiation by Rand Mutual Assurance and the tribunal's ruling were deemed inconsistent with the law.
The appeal was successful, with costs awarded. The decisions of the tribunal and Rand Mutual Assurance were set aside, and it was declared that Ms. Bent is indeed entitled to compensation under Section 22(1) of COIDA. The matter was referred back to Rand Mutual Assurance for the calculation and determination of the appropriate compensation. Costs were ordered on an attorney-and-client scale.
Guidance: This case underscores the broad interpretation of "arising out of and in the course of employment" under COIDA, particularly in situations where an employee is injured on the employer's premises while departing from work. Employers and insurers should consider the entire scope of activities incidental to employment, including the act of entering and exiting the workplace, when assessing COIDA claims. This ruling strengthens employee protections by ensuring compensation for injuries sustained during these necessary transitions.