SANParks Faces Liability in Leopard Attack: Mpumalanga Judgment Explained

Background

On 20 August 2025, the High Court of South Africa, Mpumalanga Division (Mbombela), delivered judgment in I.N and Another v South African National Parks (case number 4360/2021). Acting Judge Zodwa Gumede presided over the matter, which arose from the tragic death of the plaintiffs’ minor child, who was attacked and killed by a leopard at the staff quarters of Malelane Camp in the Kruger National Park. The first plaintiff, the father, was employed by South African National Parks (SANParks) and, in terms of his employment contract, was required to reside in the staff quarters with his family. Together with the second plaintiff, the mother, he instituted a claim for damages against SANParks, which included funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and psychological trauma.

The Legal Issue

The dispute came before the court as a stated case. SANParks raised a special plea in terms of section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 (COIDA). According to SANParks, the leopard attack constituted an “occupational injury” because the father was obliged to live within the Park and the presence of dangerous wildlife was a foreseeable risk of that environment. Section 35(1) provides that no action lies by an employee or their dependents for damages in respect of an occupational injury or disease, limiting recourse to the statutory framework of COIDA. The plaintiffs, however, contended that the death of their child was unrelated to the father’s employment duties and therefore did not fall within the scope of COIDA.

The Court’s Reasoning

Judge Gumede examined relevant precedent to determine whether the incident could be classified as an occupational injury. In MEC for Health, Free State v DN, the courts found that a rape committed against a doctor at work did not constitute an occupational injury, because it bore no relation to the doctor’s duties. In De Gee v Transnet, the court considered whether injuries sustained in a lift accident on the employer’s premises could be said to arise out of employment. In Churchill v Premier of Mpumalanga, protest violence at a workplace was similarly held not to be a risk incidental to employment.

The court stressed that the decisive question is whether the event is sufficiently closely connected to the performance of an employee’s duties. Judge Gumede held that the killing of a child by a wild animal, although occurring on SANParks premises, was not incidental to the father’s duties as an employee. Importantly, the judge pointed out that if SANParks’ argument were accepted, even the second plaintiff’s claim as a dependent would have to be barred, which would lead to an unreasonable and unconstitutional result. Relying on the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Appeal in prior cases, the court concluded that such a restriction of common-law rights could not be countenanced.

Judgment

The court dismissed SANParks’ special plea and declared that section 35 of COIDA did not prohibit the plaintiffs from instituting their claim against their employer. SANParks was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Significance

The judgment has important implications for South African labour and occupational injury law. It makes clear that COIDA does not automatically apply to every incident that takes place on an employer’s premises. For COIDA to apply, the accident must be sufficiently connected to the duties of employment. In this case, the death of the child was linked to the family’s residence in the Park, but it was not linked to the father’s actual work duties. This means employees and their dependents may still pursue common-law claims in circumstances where the harm arises from risks unrelated to the employee’s tasks.

The ruling is a reminder to employers, particularly those operating in hazardous environments such as SANParks, that they cannot rely solely on COIDA to shield themselves from liability. Where the harm is not incidental to the employee’s duties, the courts will uphold the right of employees and dependents to seek damages directly from the employer.

Contact Danel Campbell Attorneys for compassionate, experienced legal assistance.

info@danelcampbell.co.za
Pretoria | Serving clients across South Africa