PVL3701 –Assignment 01 Semester 2 Solutions
Due date: 28 August 2025
FOR EXAMS, PORTFOLIO, AND ASSIGNMENT
ASSISTANCE WHATSAPP
083 286 8465 EMAIL:
Disclaimer: This document is provided for educational purposes only and represents the
original work of the author, intended solely for learning, research, and reference. No part of
this material has been generated using AI tools, and all sources, where applicable, have been
properly acknowledged to ensure zero plagiarism. By using or submitting this document, you
agree to use it only as a guide for academic purposes, accept full responsibility for any
academic or legal consequences arising from plagiarism, misuse, or institutional violations, and
comply with your institution’s code of conduct and academic regulations. Unauthorized
copying, distribution, resale, or commercial use of this material is strictly prohibited.
, Introduction
This essay critically analyses the claims brought by Mr Andile Mahlangu against Ms
Nokuthula Ngubane following a fire that spread from Ngubane’s farm and destroyed
part of Mahlangu’s commercial timber plantation. The central legal issues concern
the distinct concepts of wrongfulness and negligence in South African delict law, and
whether these elements are present to establish liability. It will consider how a South
African court would apply these principles to the facts, including statutory
considerations under the National Veld and Forest Fires Act 101 of 1998 and
relevant case law. Additionally, the essay will engage with Visser and Potgieter’s
theory on the concept of damage, to assess the nature and proof of loss in this
scenario.
Wrongfulness in South African Delict Law
Wrongfulness constitutes an objective normative inquiry into whether the defendant’s
conduct unjustifiably infringed a legally protected interest. It does not require fault but
asks if society should hold the defendant legally accountable for the harm caused.
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden
emphasised that wrongfulness is assessed independently from negligence and is
concerned with public policy and reasonableness. 1 In the present matter, the court
would ask whether Ngubane owed Mahlangu a legal duty to prevent the fire from
spreading beyond her property, and whether failing to meet this duty is legally
unacceptable. Considering the mutual reliance of neighbouring farmers for fire
management and the protection of commercial plantations, a legal duty likely exists.
However, the evidence that Ngubane maintained firebreaks diligently, followed fire
risk protocols, and acted in accordance with expert advice complicates the
wrongfulness inquiry. The National Veld and Forest Fires Act 101 of 1998 imposes
obligations on landowners and occupiers to take reasonable precautions but
recognises the possibility of uncontrollable natural events such as extreme wind. 2 As
the SCA held in MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Swart NO, the existence of extreme
natural conditions that render firebreaks ineffective may negate wrongfulness
because the conduct does not fall short of the legal standard expected. 3Therefore,
1
Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA) paras 30–35.
2
National Veld and Forest Fires Act 101 of 1998.
3
MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Swart NO 2017 (5) SA 76 (SCA) paras 22–30.
Due date: 28 August 2025
FOR EXAMS, PORTFOLIO, AND ASSIGNMENT
ASSISTANCE WHATSAPP
083 286 8465 EMAIL:
Disclaimer: This document is provided for educational purposes only and represents the
original work of the author, intended solely for learning, research, and reference. No part of
this material has been generated using AI tools, and all sources, where applicable, have been
properly acknowledged to ensure zero plagiarism. By using or submitting this document, you
agree to use it only as a guide for academic purposes, accept full responsibility for any
academic or legal consequences arising from plagiarism, misuse, or institutional violations, and
comply with your institution’s code of conduct and academic regulations. Unauthorized
copying, distribution, resale, or commercial use of this material is strictly prohibited.
, Introduction
This essay critically analyses the claims brought by Mr Andile Mahlangu against Ms
Nokuthula Ngubane following a fire that spread from Ngubane’s farm and destroyed
part of Mahlangu’s commercial timber plantation. The central legal issues concern
the distinct concepts of wrongfulness and negligence in South African delict law, and
whether these elements are present to establish liability. It will consider how a South
African court would apply these principles to the facts, including statutory
considerations under the National Veld and Forest Fires Act 101 of 1998 and
relevant case law. Additionally, the essay will engage with Visser and Potgieter’s
theory on the concept of damage, to assess the nature and proof of loss in this
scenario.
Wrongfulness in South African Delict Law
Wrongfulness constitutes an objective normative inquiry into whether the defendant’s
conduct unjustifiably infringed a legally protected interest. It does not require fault but
asks if society should hold the defendant legally accountable for the harm caused.
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden
emphasised that wrongfulness is assessed independently from negligence and is
concerned with public policy and reasonableness. 1 In the present matter, the court
would ask whether Ngubane owed Mahlangu a legal duty to prevent the fire from
spreading beyond her property, and whether failing to meet this duty is legally
unacceptable. Considering the mutual reliance of neighbouring farmers for fire
management and the protection of commercial plantations, a legal duty likely exists.
However, the evidence that Ngubane maintained firebreaks diligently, followed fire
risk protocols, and acted in accordance with expert advice complicates the
wrongfulness inquiry. The National Veld and Forest Fires Act 101 of 1998 imposes
obligations on landowners and occupiers to take reasonable precautions but
recognises the possibility of uncontrollable natural events such as extreme wind. 2 As
the SCA held in MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Swart NO, the existence of extreme
natural conditions that render firebreaks ineffective may negate wrongfulness
because the conduct does not fall short of the legal standard expected. 3Therefore,
1
Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA) paras 30–35.
2
National Veld and Forest Fires Act 101 of 1998.
3
MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Swart NO 2017 (5) SA 76 (SCA) paras 22–30.
