TLI4801
PORTFOLIO EXAM (SEMESTER 2)
DUE 28 October 2025
QUESTION 1: CIVIL PRACTICE [50]
1.1 (a) Letter of Demand
Yes, It is strongly recommended that Mrs. Slipper initiate her legal action with a letter of
demand prior to issuing summons against Slip and Shiny Hotel (Pty) Ltd. Such a letter
formally informs the defendant of the plaintiff’s claim and encourages an amicable
resolution. Marnewick (2019:110) notes that a demand letter serves to notify the debtor,
outline the relief sought, and propose settlement before litigation commences.
The advantages of sending a demand letter include showing good faith, potentially
reducing legal costs, and avoiding prolonged court proceedings. It also creates
evidence that the plaintiff allowed the defendant a reasonable opportunity to address
the harm before litigation. The letter should detail the incident, specify damages claimed
(R350 000 current and R75 000 future medical expenses), and set a response period of
10–14 days. If ignored, Mrs. Slipper may proceed with summons with a stronger
position.
(b) Provisional vs Combined Summons
Mrs. Slipper should proceed using a combined summons. Provisional sentence
summonses are limited to claims supported by a liquid document, such as a signed
acknowledgment of debt or cheque.
Since her claim arises from negligence and no liquid document exists, the combined
summons is appropriate. Rule 17(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court and Marnewick
(2019:164) indicate that combined summons are suitable where the cause of action
requires elaboration through a particulars of claim.
, (c) Pleading Annexed to Summons
The appropriate pleading is the Particulars of Claim, which details the facta probanda
and the relief sought. It must adhere to Rule 18 of the Uniform Rules of Court. For Mrs.
Slipper’s claim, it should include: parties’ details and locus standi, duty of care owed by
the hotel, facts showing negligence, causation, and damages (R425 000).
The pleading informs the defendant and assists the court in identifying the key issues
(Marnewick, 2019:168).
(d)
Material Facts (Facta Probanda) – Draft Extract
1. The Plaintiff, Mrs. N. Slipper, is an adult female residing at 25 Oakwood Drive,
Johannesburg.
2. The Defendant, Slip and Shiny Hotel (Pty) Ltd, is a private company duly
incorporated under South African law, conducting business at the Durban
beachfront.
3. On or about 23 August 2025, at approximately 08h15, the Plaintiff was lawfully
walking through the hotel lobby towards the beach exit when she slipped on a clear
liquid substance on the floor and fell.
4. The liquid was present due to the negligent conduct or omission of the Defendant’s
employees or other guests, and the Defendant failed to maintain the lobby in a safe
condition in accordance with its policies requiring continuous hazard monitoring.
5. The Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care to ensure the safety of its guests and
to prevent foreseeable harm.
6. The Defendant breached this duty by failing to identify, remove, or warn of the spill
timeously.
7. As a direct result of the Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff sustained a fractured
right hip, requiring medical treatment, surgery, and rehabilitation, resulting in current
medical expenses of R350 000 and anticipated future expenses of R75 000.
PORTFOLIO EXAM (SEMESTER 2)
DUE 28 October 2025
QUESTION 1: CIVIL PRACTICE [50]
1.1 (a) Letter of Demand
Yes, It is strongly recommended that Mrs. Slipper initiate her legal action with a letter of
demand prior to issuing summons against Slip and Shiny Hotel (Pty) Ltd. Such a letter
formally informs the defendant of the plaintiff’s claim and encourages an amicable
resolution. Marnewick (2019:110) notes that a demand letter serves to notify the debtor,
outline the relief sought, and propose settlement before litigation commences.
The advantages of sending a demand letter include showing good faith, potentially
reducing legal costs, and avoiding prolonged court proceedings. It also creates
evidence that the plaintiff allowed the defendant a reasonable opportunity to address
the harm before litigation. The letter should detail the incident, specify damages claimed
(R350 000 current and R75 000 future medical expenses), and set a response period of
10–14 days. If ignored, Mrs. Slipper may proceed with summons with a stronger
position.
(b) Provisional vs Combined Summons
Mrs. Slipper should proceed using a combined summons. Provisional sentence
summonses are limited to claims supported by a liquid document, such as a signed
acknowledgment of debt or cheque.
Since her claim arises from negligence and no liquid document exists, the combined
summons is appropriate. Rule 17(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court and Marnewick
(2019:164) indicate that combined summons are suitable where the cause of action
requires elaboration through a particulars of claim.
, (c) Pleading Annexed to Summons
The appropriate pleading is the Particulars of Claim, which details the facta probanda
and the relief sought. It must adhere to Rule 18 of the Uniform Rules of Court. For Mrs.
Slipper’s claim, it should include: parties’ details and locus standi, duty of care owed by
the hotel, facts showing negligence, causation, and damages (R425 000).
The pleading informs the defendant and assists the court in identifying the key issues
(Marnewick, 2019:168).
(d)
Material Facts (Facta Probanda) – Draft Extract
1. The Plaintiff, Mrs. N. Slipper, is an adult female residing at 25 Oakwood Drive,
Johannesburg.
2. The Defendant, Slip and Shiny Hotel (Pty) Ltd, is a private company duly
incorporated under South African law, conducting business at the Durban
beachfront.
3. On or about 23 August 2025, at approximately 08h15, the Plaintiff was lawfully
walking through the hotel lobby towards the beach exit when she slipped on a clear
liquid substance on the floor and fell.
4. The liquid was present due to the negligent conduct or omission of the Defendant’s
employees or other guests, and the Defendant failed to maintain the lobby in a safe
condition in accordance with its policies requiring continuous hazard monitoring.
5. The Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care to ensure the safety of its guests and
to prevent foreseeable harm.
6. The Defendant breached this duty by failing to identify, remove, or warn of the spill
timeously.
7. As a direct result of the Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff sustained a fractured
right hip, requiring medical treatment, surgery, and rehabilitation, resulting in current
medical expenses of R350 000 and anticipated future expenses of R75 000.
