Authored By: Shaan Molebogeng
University of South Africa
1. Introduction
In May 2019, the High Court declared the exclusion of domestic workers from COIDA unconstitutional and invalid. COIDA (Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993) provides compensation to employees for work related injuries or diseases, ensuring protection for workers and legal compliance for employers. The declaration of invalidity was applied retrospectively to provide relief to domestic workers who were injured or died before the order.
2. The Importance
COIDA ensures a balanced system where employees receive support during workplace injuries or illness, while employers are protected from potentially costly lawsuits. It promotes safety, fairness and procedural integrity in South African workplaces. By understanding and complying with COIDA, both employees and employers can navigate workplace risks while ensuring legal and financial protection.
3. What did the Court say?
Domestic workers can now claim compensation for workplace injuries.
4. Actual Case
Mahlangu and Another V Minister of Labour and Others (CCT306/19) [2020] ZACC 24
Facts of the Case
The mother of the applicant was employed as a domestic worker in a private household. While executing her duties, she drowned in her employer’s pool.
The applicant, as the sole dependent of the deceased, approached the Department of Labour for compensation in respect of her mother’s death.
She was informed that she would not be able to receive compensation under COIDA.
The applicant sought an order declaring section 1(xix)(v) of COIDA unconstitutional because it excluded domestic workers employed in private households from the definition of “employee”.
Why Domestic Workers Were Excluded?
Prior to the Constitutional Court judgements, section 1 (xix) (v) of COIDA specifically excluded domestic workers employed in private households from the definition of “employee”. As a result, domestic workers could not access compensation benefits available to other workers who suffered workplace injuries, illness or death. (ConCourt Collections) This exclusion had serious consequences because many domestic workers and their families were left without financial support following workplace accidents. (ConCourt Collections)
5. Constitutional Rights Affected
The Constitutional Court found that the exclusion violates several constitutional rights:
Rights to equality (Section 9)
The exclusion unfairly differentiates domestic workers and other employees who were protected by COIDA. Since domestic workers are predominantly black women, the exclusion also resulted in indirect discrimination based on race, sex and gender.
Right to Human Dignity (Section 10)
The court held that excluding domestic workers from compensation protection undermined their dignity and reinforced the perception that domestic work is less valuable than other forms of work (Concourt collections)
Right to Social Security (Section 27)
By denying domestic workers access to compensation benefits, the law limited their access to social security protections available to other workers (Concourt Collections)
6.What the Court Said
In May 2019, the High Court declared the exclusion of domestic workers from COIDA unconstitutional and invalid. The Constitutional Court later confirmed the order.
The exclusion infringed the rights to social security, equality before the law and human dignity.
The differentiation between domestic workers and other workers was arbitrary and inconsistent with equal protection under the law.
Because domestic workers are predominantly Black women, the exclusion amounted to indirect discrimination on the basis of race, sex and gender.
The exclusion had a stigmatizing effect on the dignity of domestic workers and suggested their work was less valuable.
Acting Justice Victor stated: “The idea that the duties performed by domestic workers do not constitute real work, and that they are merely engaging in an inherently feminine endeavour, is deeply sexist and has a significant effect on their dignity.”
Significance of the Mahlangu judgement
The decision is regarded as a landmark victory for Labour rights and gender equality in South Africa
The judgement:
Recognized domestic work as a valuable work deserving equal protection
Advanced the rights of vulnerable workers
Promoted substantive equity.
Strengthened Constitutional protections for women in the workplace.
Confirmed that legislation must be respect dignity and human rights. www.casenotes.space
7. Duties of employers after the judgement
Employer of domestic workers should:
Register with the compensation fund
Keep records of their employees
Report workplace injuries when they occur
Pay required assessment to the compensation fund
Maintain a safe working condition for domestic workers
These measures help ensure compliance with workplace legislation and provide protection to both employees and employers
8. Recommendations
Government should continue educating domestic workers and employers about COIDA rights
Employers should ensure full compliance with Labour laws
Domestic workers should report unsafe working conditions
Greater awareness campaigns should be conducted in communities where domestic workers are employed
Access to the compensation fund should be simplified for vulnerable workers
9. Conclusion
The order allows domestic workers who were injured, or their families in cases of death, to claim relief under COIDA.
The order has retrospective effect from 27 April 1994, allowing older claims to be instituted under COIDA requirements.
The judgment emphasizes that all employees, including domestic workers, must be provided with a safe working environment.
Domestic workers and employers should understand the relevant procedures and measures for claiming under COIDA.
The Constitutional Courts decision in Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Labour and Others represent a significant step towards equality and social justice in South Africa. By extending COIDA protection to domestic workers, the court recognized the dignity and value of domestic work and ensured that domestic workers enjoy the same legal protection as other employees. The judgements promote fairness, workplace safety and access to social security, while also addressing historical patterns of discrimination against black women employed as domestic workers (Concourt collection).
Bibliography
Cases
Mahlangu and Another V Minister of Labour and Others
Qwelani v South African Human Rights Commission
National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Acton (CCT108/17) [2018] ZACC 30
Legislation
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Sections 9, 10, 16 and 27)
Sections 10(1)and 11 of the Equality Act
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993
Legal Articles
Legal Wise Article (29 June 2025)
Others
ConCourt collections
