In December 2025, the High Court held that the claimant’s delictual damages claim against his employer, the Minister of Health, had prescribed and the notice requirement under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act was not met. The court held that the assault was not a risk incidental to the claimant’s employment as a nurse and the statutory bar in section 35 of COIDA did not apply.

On 1 June 2014 at a public community health centre, a member of the public attacked a nurse after a patient died following resuscitation efforts. The claimant served a summons on 20 May 2022 against his employer, and the MEC for the Department of Health, Mpumalanga and the HOD for the Department of Health, Mpumalanga, seeking damages for negligence, emotional distress, and medical expenses.

The plaintiff’s employer and co-defendants raised three special pleas: the statutory bar under section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act of 1993 (COIDA), prescription under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act of 1969, and non‑compliance with section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act of 2002 (ILPACOSA).

When considering the COIDA special plea, the court queried whether the act causing the injury was a risk incidental to employment. It relied on Churchill v Premier of Mpumalanga and Another (889/2019) [2021] ZASCA 16 and reasoned that the closer the link between the injury and ordinary duties, the more likely it is to arise out of employment. On the facts, the assault was held not to be a risk inherent in the nurse’s duties and the COIDA special plea was dismissed.

Regarding prescription, the court noted that the claim was subject to the ordinary three‑year prescription period. Prescription runs when the creditor has the minimum facts necessary to sue, including knowledge of the debtor’s identity and the facts giving rise to the debt. The court emphasised that prescription is not postponed until legal advice is obtained or until a criminal case is finalised. Having regard to the facts, the claimant had the required knowledge in 2014, and the special plea of prescription was upheld.

The court rejected the argument that prescription was interrupted based on an employer‑completed COIDA form and reimbursement of travel expenses. An acknowledgment that interrupts prescription must be an express or tacit admission of liability directed to the creditor. The COIDA form documented facts to enable a statutory compensation claim. It was not an acknowledgment of delictual liability.

Section 3 of ILPACOSA requires written notice to the organ of state within six months from when the debt becomes due, subject to the same knowledge standard as prescription. The court reasoned that because the debt was due in 2014 and prescription began then, the special plea should be upheld.

The court upheld two special pleas and dismissed the claim with costs.

Mafuyeka v Minister of Health and Others (2133/2022) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 118 (10 December 2025)