A Limpopo cleaner, Cecilia Nkwinika, has filed a lawsuit against her employer, Peppadew International, seeking R1.71 million in damages after a colleague allegedly sprayed a chemical into her face. The incident occurred on April 23, 2023, while Nkwinika was performing her cleaning duties at the company's premises. According to Nkwinika's particulars of claim, the chemical caused severe injuries to her eyes, resulting in excruciating pain and a sudden loss of vision.
Nkwinika alleged that the company and its employees negligently failed to take reasonable steps to ensure her safety at the workplace. She claimed that the employee, Senyolo, who sprayed the chemical, operated the equipment without the necessary skill, knowledge, or certification. Nkwinika listed her injuries as conjunctivitis, facial skin changes, swelling, an inability to count fingers with her right eye, chemical burns to her eyes, and psychological trauma and depression.
The company, however, argued that Nkwinika's claim was barred by Section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA), which generally prevents employees from suing their employers for damages arising from occupational injuries covered by the Act. Peppadew International argued that Nkwinika was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment and was therefore prohibited from pursuing a common-law damages claim against the company.
Nkwinika opposed the exception, arguing that although the incident happened at work, it was unrelated to her cleaning duties and did not constitute an occupational injury covered by COIDA. Judge Marisa Naudé-Odendaal referred to the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment in Churchill v Premier of Mpumalanga, which established that an injury occurring at the workplace does not automatically mean that it arose out of an employee's employment.
The court found that the spraying of chemicals by Senyolo bore no relation to Nkwinika's duties as a cleaner. The judge said Nkwinika was injured because Senyolo sprayed her in the face with a chemical using a backpack sprayer. Whether the spraying was negligent or deliberate and constituted an assault would be determined by the trial court.
The court consequently ruled that Peppadew International was not excluded from liability and dismissed the company's exception. The ruling does not determine whether the company is ultimately liable for the damages claimed or the amount Nkwinika may receive. Those issues remain to be determined in the main action.
Nkwinika is claiming R1.71 million in damages, covering past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings or earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional trauma, and loss of amenities of life. She also anticipates further medical treatment, including surgery and reconstructive surgery, ophthalmological treatment, optometric therapy, glasses, and psychological consultations.
Key points
- The Limpopo High Court in Polokwane has ruled that Peppadew International cannot rely on COIDA to escape potential liability for the alleged chemical injury to Nkwinika.
- Nkwinika's lawsuit against Peppadew International is seeking R1.71 million in damages for her injuries and anticipated future medical treatment.
- The court's decision does not determine the ultimate liability of Peppadew International or the amount of damages Nkwinika may receive.
