COIDA Workplace Injuries: Coverage While Leaving the Workplace

The scope of compensable workplace injuries under the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 (“COIDA”) continues to generate debate, particularly where an employee is injured after completing their duties but before exiting the employer’s premises. A recent decision of the Gauteng Division of the High Court has provided important clarity on this issue, reaffirming that the concept of “arising out of and in the course of employment” must be interpreted purposively and in a manner favourable to employees.

The COIDA Framework

Section 22(1) of COIDA entitles an employee to compensation for an accident “arising out of and in the course of his or her employment.” While the wording appears straightforward, its application has required judicial interpretation, especially in cases where the employee was not actively performing work duties at the time of the accident. South African courts have long recognised that employment is not limited to the precise moments during which an employee performs core job functions. Instead, it may extend to activities that are incidental to employment, including movement within the employer’s premises, provided there is a sufficient causal and spatial connection to the employment relationship.

Case Study

In Bent v Rand Mutual Assurance (Pty) Ltd (Appeal) (A120/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1328 (9 December 2025), the High Court was tasked with determining whether an employee who was injured while leaving her workplace was entitled to compensation under COIDA. The employee was employed as a credit clerk by the employer at its Hatfield premises, a three-storey building used exclusively for business purposes. Having completed her work for the day, she began descending the stairs to exit the building because the lift was out of order. While on the staircase between the third and second floors, she slipped and fractured her ankle.

The employer submitted a claim to Rand Mutual Assurance in terms of section 22 of COIDA. The claim was repudiated on the basis that the employee was not performing her employment duties at the time of the accident. An objection was lodged, but a tribunal upheld the repudiation, finding that the accident was not sufficiently connected to her employment. The employee appealed this decision, contending that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, as she was still within the employer’s premises and was using access routes available to her solely by virtue of her employment.

On appeal, the High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the jurisprudence relating to injuries sustained while travelling to and from work, injuries occurring within workplace premises after hours, and injuries sustained during the performance of employment duties. The court emphasised that these categories are not rigid and that each case must be assessed on its own facts. The court held that employment does not terminate the moment an employee stops working. Where an employee is still on the employer’s premises and is traversing areas that form part of the workplace infrastructure, such as staircases and exits, the employment relationship continues for purposes of COIDA. Walking between floors and exiting the building were incidental to the employee’s employment, and the risk of injury associated with navigating the employer’s premises was inherent to that employment. Importantly, the court found that the tribunal’s narrow interpretation undermined the purpose of COIDA, which is to provide compensation for workplace-related injuries without requiring proof of fault. The Act must be interpreted generously and in a manner that affords the greatest possible protection to employees. The fact that the employer itself supported the claim further underscored the artificiality of the insurer’s repudiation.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The tribunal’s ruling and Rand Mutual’s repudiation were set aside, and it was declared that the employee is entitled to compensation in terms of section 22(1) of COIDA. The matter was remitted to Rand Mutual Assurance for the calculation and determination of the compensation payable.

Conclusion

The case of Bent v Rand Mutual Assurance serves as a timely reminder that the protection afforded by COIDA does not end when an employee clocks off. As long as an employee is still within the employer’s premises and exposed to risks inherent in that environment, the employment nexus remains intact. A purposive and employee-centric interpretation of COIDA is essential to ensuring that its objectives are fulfilled, and that injured employees are not left without recourse due to an unduly narrow reading of the law.