This blog is co-authored by Katelyn-Mae Carter, candidate attorney.

The High Court dismissed a defence by South African National Parks (SANParks) that section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 1993 (COIDA) precluded the claimant from claiming personal damages arising from the death of the minor child of an employee who was mauled by a leopard in a SANParks camp.

The employee and his wife claimed funeral expenses and damages for psychological trauma after their minor child was mauled to death by the leopard at staff quarters in a camp in the Kruger National Park. SANParks argued that section 35(1) of COIDA prevented the employee or their dependants from suing SANParks as the employer for damages in respect of an occupational injury or disease arising out of and in the course of employment.

The court held that the incident was not an occupational injury under COIDA, the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment of the employee, and it was not connected to the employee’s duties.

Although the employee was required to live in the staff quarters, the court found no causal link between the killing of the child and the employee’s work duties. The mere presence of wild animals in the park did not make the attack a risk incidental to employment. The incident, while connected to the employee’s employment, was not connected to his duties and therefore was not an occupational injury. The defence failed.

Liability and damages have yet to be decided.

It is not surprising that this extraordinary defence failed.

I.N and Another v South African National Parks (4360/2021) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 90 (20 August 2025)