LPL4802
27 OCTOBER 2023
EXAMINATION ANSWERS
.
*We are so confident in our answers, if you do not
receive a distinction, contact us for a full refund!
, HONESTY DECLARATION
Module Code: ....................... Assessment Date.................
1. I know that plagiarism means taking and using the ideas, writings, works or
inventions of another as if they were one’s own. I know that plagiarism not only
includes verbatim copying, but also the extensive use of another person’s ideas
without proper acknowledgement (which includes the proper use of quotation marks)
or any attempt to cheat the plagiarism checking system. I know that plagiarism
covers the use of material found in textual sources and from the Internet.
2. I acknowledge and understand that plagiarism is wrong.
3. I understand that my assignment/exam answers must be accurately referenced.
4. This assignment/exam file/portfolio is my own work. I acknowledge that copying
someone else’s work, or part of it, is wrong, and that submitting identical work to
others constitutes a form of plagiarism.
5. I have not allowed, nor will I in the future allow anyone to copy my work with the
intention of passing it off as their own work.
6. I understand that I can be awarded 0% if I have plagiarized.
7. I understand that my assignment/exam file/portfolio may be submitted
automatically to Turnitin.
8. I confirm that I have read and understood the following UNISA policies: 8.1 Policy
for Copyright and Plagiarism
8.2 Policy on Academic Integrity
8.3 Student Disciplinary Code
Name:………………
Signed:................ . Date...................
, NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (ESSAY)
(a) Study Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund (437/2022) [2023] ZASCA (8 June
2023) case herein attached as well as the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
as amended and answer the question below:
Write a critical appreciation/analysis of the court’s reasoning to disqualify the
forklift as a motor vehicle for the purposes of claiming damages from the Road
Accident Fund. Refer to the relevant case law and applicable legislation
quoted and relied on, in this case.
The issue of whether a forklift constitutes as a 'motor vehicle' as per the Road
Accident Fund Act1 (the RAF Act) is intricate. The legal precedent of this recent
Supreme Court of Appeal case has raised substantial questions regarding the
definition and classification of motor vehicles under the Act, and hence their eligibility
for claims from the Road Accident Fund.
The Act defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle designed or adapted for propulsion
or haulage on roads by means of fuel, gas, or electricity, including a trailer. The Act
exists mainly to provide cover to individuals against antecedent liabilities incurred
regarding bodily injuries or death inflicted on people by way of motor vehicle
accidents.
In the current case2, the SCA clarified the classification of the forklift as something
other than a motor vehicle on two fronts, operating location, and design purpose.
Firstly, it examined the operating area of the forklift. It was determined that the forklift
principally operated within the confines of a private property (Nzhelele Spar). It was
rarely, if ever, driven outside the premises or across a public road. This distinction is
1
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
2
Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund (437/2022) [2023] ZASCA (8 June
2023