100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached 4.2 TrustPilot
logo-home
Exam (elaborations)

LPL4802 PORTFOLIO (DETAILED ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED

Rating
5.0
(2)
Sold
11
Pages
16
Grade
A+
Uploaded on
26-10-2025
Written in
2025/2026

LPL4802 PORTFOLIO (DETAILED ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED Answers, guidelines, workings and references ,... QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO PERSONALITY) Study the attached judgment, MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91 (20 June 2025), and answer the questions that follow. Your response must be written in essay format. Each substantive point you make, when supported by relevant legal authority, will carry a value of two (2) marks. 1.1 According to the majority judgment, how should the court a quo have approached comparable cases when assessing general damages? Discuss with reference to the relevant authority cited in the judgment. (15 marks) 1.2How should general damages be assessed in cases involving unconsciousness? Support your answer with the relevant authority as cited in the prescribed textbook. (10 marks) [25 marks] LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 5 of 9 QUESTION 2: QUANTUM OF DAMAGES AND SATISFACTION FOR NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO PERSONALITY) Study the majority judgment in the case mentioned in question 1 for question 2.1 2.1 Should claims for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life always be combined in their quantification? In your answer, first explain the distinction between these two heads of damages and then discuss the importance of handling them as separate heads. (12 marks) 2.2 Study the facts below and answer the question that follows: Factual Scenario On 12 March 2023, along the R81 road near Louis Trichardt, a motor vehicle collision occurred between a minibus taxi and a delivery truck. The plaintiff, Mr. Thabiso Mokoena, a 34-year-old schoolteacher from Polokwane, was a passenger in the taxi. He sustained multiple fractures to his leg and arm, as well as internal injuries requiring extended hospitalisation. The Road Accident Fund (RAF), acting on behalf of the defendant, accepted liability for the accident. After negotiations, Mr. Mokoena’s legal representatives secured an award of special damages amounting to R3.8 million, covering past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and related financial losses. Subsequent to the award, Mr. Mokoena’s lawyers have now lodged a claim for general damages, contending that he has suffered severe pain, loss of amenities of life, and emotional distress. The claim for general damages amounts to R2.5 million. The defendant, represented by counsel, disputes the quantum sought, contending that special and general damages are not entirely separate silos, but must be considered together in a holistic assessment. Assume the role of counsel for the defendant. Prepare structured heads of argument, supported by appropriate legal authority, to persuade the court that general damages ought not to be assessed in isolation in this context. (13 marks) LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 6 of 9 Aspect Mark Allocation Citation of Court and parties 4 (cite the appropriate division and parties fully) Introduction 2 (identify issues) Law and principle 4 (Provide a clear argument – referring to the facts to support your view) Conclusion 2 (include prayers) Language 1 (Use clear legal language, with full sentences) Total (13 marks) [25 marks] LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 7 of 9 QUESTION 3 :NATURE, CAUSING AND FORMS OF PATRIMONIAL LOSS Read the facts below and answer the questions that follow. Cornor McGregor, a 38-year-old South African male (also a US citizen), was driving his 2020 Mercedes-Benz C180 (registration AA 00 CD) on the R82 south of Johannesburg when he was struck from behind by a delivery van (registration BB 00 TT). The van, owned by HHT Bakeries (Pty) Ltd, lost control and caused the collision. HHT Bakeries has conceded liability. The accident occurred on 16 December 2019. At the time, Cornor was employed as an orthopaedic surgeon at a private hospital, earning more than R250 000 per month. He sustained the following injuries: soft tissue damage to the neck, a fractured left thumb, a fractured left toe, and a deep wound to his left temple. He remained in a coma for 21 days and thereafter spent four months recuperating at home. Having exhausted his paid sick leave, he received no income during this period. A psychologist later reported that Cornor suffered from severe intermittent memory loss. His employer subsequently terminated his contract, as he could no longer perform his duties. Cornor’s vehicle, valued at R1 200 000 before the accident, was written off and reduced to a wreck worth R600 000. He also lost an Apple watch (not available in South Africa at the time), which cost USD 2500. While his vehicle remained at the roadside overnight, thieves stole the vehicle’s battery (worth R45 000) and four wheels with rims (worth R80 000). Fourteen months after his dismissal, Cornor consults your office seeking advice on whom to sue for his losses. Answer the following questions: 3.1 State two patrimonial claims Cornor may institute against the Road Accident Fund and indicate the documents required to prove them. (4 marks) 3.2 Identify three of Cornor’s injuries for which he may NOT claim non-patrimonial damages from the Road Accident Fund and provide authority for your answer in the form of legislation and rules. (4 marks) LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 8 of 9 3.3 Explain why HHT Bakeries has rejected Cornor’s claim for the stolen wheels and battery. (2 marks) 3.4 Cornor wishes to claim the value of his Apple watch in USD from HHT Bakeries. With reference to authority, advise him on his prospects of success. (2 marks) 3.5 Apart from the Apple watch, what else may Cornor claim from HHT Bakeries? Explain why he cannot claim this from the Road Accident Fund, citing authority. (4marks) 3.6 Cornor urgently needs money to settle past hospital bills and support himself while awaiting the damages trial. Advise him on the legal mechanism available, with reference to legislation. (8 marks) 3.7 What is the Road Accident Fund Act July 2025 limit for claims of loss of income and loss of support? (1 mark) [25 marks] LPL 4802_OCT/NOV EXAM Page 9 of 9 QUESTION 4 (DRAFTING) Read the case Mdlekeza v Gallie 2021 (4) SA 531 (WCC) and answer the following. Note: Your answers must be accurate in both form and substance. You are encouraged to consult precedents when answering this section. 4.1 Draft a Notice of Motion, addressed to both the Registrar of the Court and the respondent, which the applicant in this case could have filed in respect of the alleged defamation. Your draft should conform as closely as possible to Form 2(a) of the First Schedule to the Uniform Rules. Do not include a founding affidavit. (10 marks) 4.2 Draft an Answering Affidavit that the respondent in this case could reasonably have filed in response to the allegations possibly made in the founding affidavit. Your version of the facts should correspond closely with the testimony recorded by Slingers J in the judgment. (15 marks)

Show more Read less
Institution
Course










Whoops! We can’t load your doc right now. Try again or contact support.

Connected book

Written for

Institution
Course

Document information

Uploaded on
October 26, 2025
Number of pages
16
Written in
2025/2026
Type
Exam (elaborations)
Contains
Questions & answers

Subjects

Content preview

LPL4802
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

Reviews from verified buyers

Showing all 2 reviews
1 month ago

1 month ago

5.0

2 reviews

5
2
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
Trustworthy reviews on Stuvia

All reviews are made by real Stuvia users after verified purchases.

Get to know the seller

Seller avatar
Reputation scores are based on the amount of documents a seller has sold for a fee and the reviews they have received for those documents. There are three levels: Bronze, Silver and Gold. The better the reputation, the more your can rely on the quality of the sellers work.
VarsityC AAA School of Advertising
Follow You need to be logged in order to follow users or courses
Sold
28681
Member since
8 year
Number of followers
13258
Documents
3117
Last sold
4 days ago

4.1

2819 reviews

5
1490
4
581
3
392
2
117
1
239

Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their tests and reviewed by others who've used these notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No worries! You can instantly pick a different document that better fits what you're looking for.

Pay as you like, start learning right away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and aced it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Frequently asked questions