# Limpopo Court Rejects Employer's Immunity Claim in Workplace Chemical Injury Case Judge rules workplace injury lawsuit can proceed as incident fell outside employment duties. - **Source:** [IOL News](https://www.iol.co.za/news) - **Published:** 2026-11-08 - **Topic:** [politics](https://brifing.si/c/politics) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/b3f1a23d-c532-45e1-967a-7a88a59974a5 ## Court Rejects Immunity Defense The Limpopo High Court in Polokwane dismissed an attempt by Peppadew International to block a R1.71 million damages claim. The company argued that the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) protected them from litigation. Judge Marisa Naudé-Odendaal ruled that the legal immunity does not apply to this specific incident. ## Incident Details and Injuries On April 23, 2023, cleaner Cecilia Nkwinika was allegedly sprayed in the face with a chemical by a colleague using a backpack sprayer. The incident resulted in severe eye injuries, including conjunctivitis and chemical burns. Nkwinika reported sudden vision loss, facial swelling, and ongoing psychological trauma following the workplace encounter. ## Negligence Allegations Against Employer Nkwinika claims the company failed to ensure safety by allowing an unskilled employee to operate hazardous equipment. She alleges that the operator lacked necessary certification and failed to maintain a proper lookout. The lawsuit asserts that the firm did not take adequate precautions to prevent chemical exposure to other staff members. ## Defining Occupational Injury Scope The core legal dispute centered on whether the injury arose out of employment duties. Peppadew International argued that since the event occurred during business hours on their premises, it fell under COIDA. However, the court determined that the act of spraying chemicals was entirely unrelated to the victim's cleaning responsibilities. ## Precedent and Judicial Reasoning Judge Naudé-Odendaal relied on the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in Churchill v Premier of Mpumalanga. This precedent establishes that workplace presence alone does not constitute an occupational injury. The court found that Nkwinika’s injuries were not caused by her specific job position or tasks, thus bypassing the standard COIDA protection. ## Scope of Damages Claimed The R1.71 million claim covers past and future medical expenses, including anticipated reconstructive surgery and ophthalmological therapy. It also accounts for loss of earnings, emotional trauma, and the loss of amenities of life. Nkwinika requires ongoing psychological consultations and specialized optometric care to address the long-term impact of her injuries. ## Trial Court's Future Role The current ruling only permits the lawsuit to proceed; it does not determine the company's ultimate liability or the final compensation amount. The trial court will now investigate whether the chemical spraying was a result of negligence or a deliberate assault. These findings will dictate the final outcome of the litigation. ## Implications for Workplace Safety This ruling highlights the limits of employer immunity regarding workplace accidents. By distinguishing between routine duties and unrelated harmful acts, the court has set a significant boundary for corporate liability. Companies must now ensure that safety protocols for hazardous equipment are strictly enforced to avoid common-law claims beyond standard insurance. ## Sources covering this story - https://iol.co.za/news/crime-and-courts/2026-11-08-limpopo-cleaner-claims-r171-million-in-damages-after-colleague-sprays-chemical-into-her-eye/ — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._