PROPERTY OF
VarsityTimes
For more assistance and exclusive, unique assignments, contact us on Telegram:
https://t.me/varsity_times
TAKE YOUR PICK (OPTION A or B)
OPTION A
QUESTION 1
Ngubane v RAF 2022 (5) SA 231 (GJ)
Facts of the case (2 marks):
Ngubane was severely injured in a car accident caused by another driver’s negligence. The Road
Accident Fund (RAF) admitted liability but disputed the quantum of damages. The plaintiff claimed
compensation for future medical expenses and general damages based on expert reports.
Legal question (1 mark):
OPTION B
Whether the plaintiff proved his claim for future medical expenses and general damages
sufficiently to justify the amount sought.
QUESTION 1
Judgment and ratio decidendi (10 marks):
Case: Ngubane v RAF 2022 (5) SA 231 (GJ)
The
Factscourt
of theheld
Casethat Ngubane had indeed suffered extensive injuries, including a traumatic
(2 marks):
Mr. Ngubane was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed compensation from the
Road Accident Fund (RAF). The RAF denied liability, arguing that Ngubane had not proved
negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle. The central issue was whether Ngubane
had established a prima facie case for RAF liability despite some evidentiary gaps.
Legal Question (1 mark):
Disclaimer:
The materials provided are intended for educational and informational purposes only. They
Did Ngubane discharge the onus of proving negligence or partial fault on the part of the
should not be submitted as original work or used in violation of any academic institution's
policies.driver
The buyer is insured
of the solely responsible
vehicle tofor how the
make the RAF
materials are used.
liable?
Judgment and Ratio Decidendi (10 marks):
VarsityTimes
For more assistance and exclusive, unique assignments, contact us on Telegram:
https://t.me/varsity_times
TAKE YOUR PICK (OPTION A or B)
OPTION A
QUESTION 1
Ngubane v RAF 2022 (5) SA 231 (GJ)
Facts of the case (2 marks):
Ngubane was severely injured in a car accident caused by another driver’s negligence. The Road
Accident Fund (RAF) admitted liability but disputed the quantum of damages. The plaintiff claimed
compensation for future medical expenses and general damages based on expert reports.
Legal question (1 mark):
OPTION B
Whether the plaintiff proved his claim for future medical expenses and general damages
sufficiently to justify the amount sought.
QUESTION 1
Judgment and ratio decidendi (10 marks):
Case: Ngubane v RAF 2022 (5) SA 231 (GJ)
The
Factscourt
of theheld
Casethat Ngubane had indeed suffered extensive injuries, including a traumatic
(2 marks):
Mr. Ngubane was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed compensation from the
Road Accident Fund (RAF). The RAF denied liability, arguing that Ngubane had not proved
negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle. The central issue was whether Ngubane
had established a prima facie case for RAF liability despite some evidentiary gaps.
Legal Question (1 mark):
Disclaimer:
The materials provided are intended for educational and informational purposes only. They
Did Ngubane discharge the onus of proving negligence or partial fault on the part of the
should not be submitted as original work or used in violation of any academic institution's
policies.driver
The buyer is insured
of the solely responsible
vehicle tofor how the
make the RAF
materials are used.
liable?
Judgment and Ratio Decidendi (10 marks):
