Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti

Last updated

Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameThembekile Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti Limited
Decided11 March 2011 (2011-03-11)
Docket nos.CCT 45/10
Citation(s) [2011] ZACC 3; 2011 (5) BCLR 453 (CC) ; 2011 (3) SA 237 (CC) ; [2011] 6 BLLR 527 (CC) ; (2011) 32 ILJ 545 (CC)
Case history
Prior action(s)
Court membership
Judges sitting Ngcobo CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Khampepe J, Mogoeng J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J and Brand AJ
Case opinions
Section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993 does not extinguish the common-law liability of mine-owners for occupational injury or occupational disease suffered by mineworkers.
Decision byKhampepe J (unanimous)
ConcurrenceFroneman J

Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti Ltd is a 2011 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in South African labour law and the South African law of delict. The court upheld the right of mineworkers to sue at common law for damages incurred due to occupational disease and occupational injury. The High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal had found that section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993 established a statutory bar to such claims, but the Constitutional Court held unanimously that the relevant provision applied only to workers who were entitled to claim for compensation under that act.

Contents

Background

Thembekile Mankayi worked underground as a mineworker for AngloGold Ashanti between January 1979 and September 1995. He contracted tuberculosis and chronic obstructive airway disease, rendering him unable to work, and he contended that he contracted these illnesses because of his exposure to harmful respirable dusts and gases at his AngloGold workplace. In 2004, he received compensation of R16,320 from the public Compensation Commissioner, awarded in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973 (ODIMWA).

However, Mankayi also sought compensation from AngloGold. He sued for damages in the High Court of South Africa, claiming about R2.6 million in past and future lost earnings, future medical expenses, and general damages. His claim arose at the common law of delict and consisted in the contention that AngloGold had been negligent in its legal duty to provide a safe and healthy work environment. However, entering an exception to the claim, AngloGold contended that section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993 (COIDA) presented a statutory bar to such a claim. Section 35(1) provided that:

No action shall lie by an employee or any dependant of an employee for the recovery of damages in respect of any occupational injury or disease resulting in the disablement or death of such employee against such employee's employer, and no liability for compensation on the part of such employer shall arise save under the provisions of this Act in respect of such disablement or death.

In response, Mankayi argued that section 35(1) of COIDA did not apply to him or other mineworkers, because occupational disease in mineworkers was compensated under the industry-specific statute, ODIMWA. Section 100(2) of ODIMWA explicitly provided that workers who had a claim to compensation under ODIMWA were not entitled to claim compensation under any other law, and Mankayi took this to exclude application of COIDA. ODIMWA, unlike COIDA, did not contain any prohibition against common-law claims against employers.

Handing down judgment on 26 June 2008, the Johannesburg High Court ruled in favour of AngloGold, upholding its exception. The High Court agreed with AngloGold that section 35(1) of COIDA extinguished the common-law right of mineworkers to recover damages from negligent mine-owners. On appeal, in a judgment written by Judge of Appeal Fritz Brand and delivered on 31 March 2010, the Supreme Court of Appeal found the same. Mankayi lodged a final appeal in the Constitutional Court of South Africa, where he was represented by Richard Spoor during a hearing on 17 August 2010.

Judgments

On 3 March 2011, the Constitutional Court handed down a unanimous judgment written by Justice Sisi Khampepe. The court upheld Mankayi's appeal, overturning the judgments of both lower courts on AngloGold's exception to his plea and preserving Mankayi's claim. Khampepe reached this decision by reading the "plain meaning" of the two statutes. As defined in section 1 of the act, COIDA did not contemplate mineworkers as "employees"; the act and section 35(1) thereof were intended to apply only to workers who had a claim to benefits under COIDA. Mineworkers were not included in this group. Indeed, in historical context, it was imminently reasonable for Parliament to have established two separate legislative regimes for compensating occupational injury; mineworkers were handled separately, under ODIMWA, because of "the particular risks and dangers associated with mining" and because of the unique importance of mining to the South African economy.

Justice Johan Froneman, who concurred in Khampepe's judgment, wrote separately to discuss the Constitutional Court's exercise of its discretion in granting leave to appeal to litigants. He agreed with Khampepe that leave to appeal should be granted in this case, but he outlined different reasons for that conclusion.

Significance

The judgment was welcomed as "the Court's latest and most promising innovation in the area of occupational health and safety" and for seeking to "instil some sense of accountability in employers who have exploited workers working under horrendous conditions for many years". [1] Though Makanyi had died of his illness just over a week before the judgment was delivered, [2] his counsel, Richard Spoor, told the press that the judgment "opened the doors for miners to pursue class-action suits against negligent mining companies". [3] Indeed, mineworkers with silicosis and tuberculosis went on to lodge a class action of unprecedented scale against 32 gold mining companies; [4] it culminated in a R5 billion settlement. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

The mineral asbestos is subject to a wide range of laws and regulations that relate to its production and use, including mining, manufacturing, use and disposal. Injuries attributed to asbestos have resulted in both workers' compensation claims and injury litigation. Health problems attributed to asbestos include asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung cancer, and diffuse pleural thickening.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of South Africa</span> Supreme court of South Africa

The Constitutional Court of South Africa is a supreme constitutional court established by the Constitution of South Africa, and is the apex court in the South African judicial system, with general jurisdiction.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal injury</span> Legal term for an injury to a person

Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to their body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chief Industrial Magistrate's Court</span>

The Chief Industrial Magistrate's Court of New South Wales, a division of the Local Court of New South Wales, is a court within the Australian court hierarchy established pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW).

<i>Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd</i> 2002 English tort law case

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law. It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard.

The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) is a human rights organisation based in South Africa with offices in Johannesburg (including a Constitutional Litigation Unit), Cape Town, Durban and Grahamstown. It was founded in 1979 by a group of prominent South African lawyers, including Arthur Chaskalson, Felicia Kentridge, and Geoff Budlender, under the guidance of American civil rights lawyers Jack Greenberg and Michael Meltsner, then Director-Counsel and former First Assistant Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund respectively.

The Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, operating as WorkSafeBC, is a statutory agency that came into existence in 1917, after the provincial legislature put into force legislation passed in 1902. This legislation is known as the Workers Compensation Act.

Afrox Healthcare Ltd v Strydom, an important case in South African contract law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on May 13, 2002, with judgment handed down on May 31.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marikana massacre</span> 2012 killing of striking miners by police in Wonderkop, North West, South Africa

The Marikana massacre was the killing of thirty-four miners by the South African Police Service (SAPS) on 16 August 2012 during a six-week wildcat strike at the Lonmin platinum mine at Marikana near Rustenburg in South Africa's North West province. The massacre constituted the most lethal use of force by South African security forces against civilians since the Soweto uprising in 1976 and has been compared to the 1960 Sharpeville massacre.

Christopher Nyaole Jafta is a retired South African judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa from October 2009 to October 2021. Formerly an academic and practising advocate in the Transkei, he joined the bench in November 1999 as a judge of the Transkei Division. Thereafter he served in the Supreme Court of Appeal from November 2004 to October 2009.

Sisi Virginia Khampepe is a retired South African judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa between October 2009 and October 2021. Formerly a prominent labour lawyer, she joined the bench in December 2000 as a judge of the Transvaal Provincial Division. She was also a member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

<i>President v M&G Media</i> South African legal case

President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v M & G Media Ltd is 2011 decision in South African administrative law. Decided in the Constitutional Court of South Africa, it concerned access to information and the adjudication of disputes under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000.

Zealand v Minister of Justice is an important case in South African constitutional law.

<i>Venning v Chin</i> Australian court case

Venning v Chin (1974) 10 SASR 299 is a Supreme Court of South Australia full court judgment, by which it was decided that in trespass cases, the onus lies on the defendant to disprove fault. However, for injuries caused in highway accidents, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove fault on the part of the defendant.

<i>DE v RH</i> South African legal case

DE v RH is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the law of delict. The court abolished the third-party delictual claim for adultery, holding unanimously that society's contemporary boni mores indicated that the act of adultery by a third party lacks wrongfulness and therefore does not give rise to delictual liability. The judgment was handed down without papers on 19 June 2015 and was written by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, with a separate concurrence by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.

<i>Paulsen v Slip Knot</i> South African legal case

Paulsen and Another v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Limited is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. In a judgment delivered on 24 March 2015, a majority of the court overturned the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Standard Bank v Oneanate, which had established a pendente lite exception to the in duplum rule.

<i>SATAWU v Garvas</i> South African legal case

In South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Garvas and Others, the Constitutional Court of South Africa dismissed a constitutional challenge to section 11 of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993. The relevant provisions of the act widen the circumstances in which persons can be held liable for riot damage incurred during public gatherings which they have organised. The Constitutional Court conceded that these provisions created a chilling effect, thereby limiting the constitutional right to freedom of assembly, but it held that this rights limitation is reasonable and justifiable.

References

  1. Tshoose, C. I. (1 February 2012). "Justice delayed is justice denied: Protecting Miners against Occupational injuries and diseases: Comments on Mankayi v Anglogold Ashanti Ltd 2011 32 ILJ 545 (CC)". Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad. 14 (7). doi:10.4314/pelj.v14i7.10. ISSN   1727-3781.
  2. "Court's lifeline comes too late for former mineworker". News24. 5 March 2011. Retrieved 10 March 2024.
  3. "Judgment gives hope to miners' families". The Mail & Guardian. 4 March 2011. Retrieved 10 March 2024.
  4. "Miners seek justice over killer dust". The Mail & Guardian. 5 March 2015. Retrieved 10 March 2024.
  5. Brickhill, Jason (2 January 2021). "A river of disease: Silicosis and the future of class actions in South Africa". South African Journal on Human Rights. 37 (1): 31–58. doi:10.1080/02587203.2021.1963834. ISSN   0258-7203.