PORTFOLIO Semester 2 2025
Due Date: 30 October 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS
(INJURY TO PERSONALITY)
1.1
The Supreme Court of Appeal in MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v
AAS obo CMMS made it very clear that the trial court misunderstood how to properly
make use of previous awards in similar cases. The court explained that while it is
essential to refer to comparable cases when assessing general damages for non-
patrimonial loss, they must only serve as guidance and not be used as a binding
rule. The court referred to De Jongh v Du Pisanie, where it was stated that the
primary principle remains the discretion of the court. Comparable cases help create
a framework of fairness and consistency but should not take away the court’s power
to decide what is just in the specific matter before it.1
In this case, the court criticised the High Court for relying too heavily on comparisons
with past awards without carefully weighing the unique facts and circumstances of
the plaintiff’s injuries. The court stressed that general damages should not be treated
like items on a price list where each injury has a fixed amount. Instead, courts should
consider various factors such as the age of the plaintiff, the severity of the injuries,
medical treatment received, emotional and physical suffering, and the long-term
impact on the plaintiff’s life.2
The court leaned on the well-known principle established in Protea Assurance Co
Ltd v Lamb, where it was emphasised that the comparison of cases should not
become a detailed audit of old judgments. Rather, the process should help judges
come to a fair amount that aligns with previous awards in similar circumstances,
ensuring that their decision is not completely out of step with what has been awarded
in other cases.3
It was also made clear that these comparisons need to take into account the
changing value of money over time. A previous award from many years ago cannot
be used at face value without adjusting for inflation. The court acknowledged that the
1
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023)
[2025] ZASCA 91, para 38.
2
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS, para 36.
3
Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A).
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
, value of damages should reflect present-day currency values and purchasing power.
This helps maintain fairness and consistency in compensation.4
The majority judgment in the CMMS case concluded that the trial court did not follow
these principles properly. By relying too strictly on previous figures, the trial court
missed the opportunity to exercise its discretion in a meaningful way. This rigid
approach went against the flexible nature of judicial discretion that must always
guide the awarding of non-patrimonial damages.5
In South African law, as supported by Visser and Potgieter’s Law of Damages,
previous awards serve to offer direction, not restriction. A judge must fit the case into
a general pattern of past decisions, but still treat each case as unique. This flexible
method ensures that awards are fair, reasonable, and justifiable within the South
African legal system.6
The law has also developed a kind of "market value" for non-patrimonial loss, built
up over time through these past awards. But even within that, judges are expected to
apply their minds carefully to the facts before them to avoid unpredictable and
inconsistent rulings.7
1.2
In cases where a plaintiff is unconscious due to severe brain injury, the question of
general damages becomes more complex. According to Visser and Potgieter’s Law
of Damages, courts must distinguish between two types of loss: the personal
experience of the plaintiff (which is subjective) and the actual impairment or harm
caused to their quality of life (which is objective).8
When someone is permanently unconscious, they do not feel pain, sadness, or
emotional trauma, so there is no subjective experience of the loss. This means that
4
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS, para 44.
5
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS, para 41.
6
Potgieter JM, Steynberg L and Floyd TB, Visser and Potgieter’s Law of Damages, 3rd ed (Juta
2012) 503.
7
Ibid 506.
8
Ibid, 504.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372