,LPL4802 October November Exam 2025 - Due Date
30 October 2025; 100 % TRUSTED workings,
Expert Solved, Explanations and Solutions.
1.1 How the court a quo should have approached comparable
cases when assessing general damages
In the judgment of MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial
Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91
(“the SCA judgment”) the majority emphasised the correct
role of previous awards (comparable cases) in assessing
general damages (non-patrimonial loss). The critique of the
court a quo and the guidance given provide a roadmap of the
proper approach. Below I set out the key points, with legal
authority.
(i) Discretion lies with the court to assess quantum
The SCA affirmed that in assessing general (non-patrimonial)
damages the trial court exercises a discretion. The earlier
decision of De Jongh v Du Pisanie NO 2005 (5) SA 457 (SCA) is
instructive: Brand JA stated that the determination of a fair
amount of non-patrimonial damages “lies in the discretion of
the court”. Scribd+2Stuvia+2 The SCA judgment emphasises
that comparable past awards are only guides and not binding.
Stuvia+3Studocu+3SAFLII+3
Thus, the court a quo should have acknowledged its discretion
and not treated previous awards as de facto tariffs.
, (ii) Comparable cases should serve as guidance, not rigid
benchmarks
In De Jongh, it was held that comparison with previous cases
“provides the court with wide parameters within which the
quantum of its award should appropriately fall”. Stuvia+1 And
that “the process of comparison does not take the form of a
meticulous examination of awards made in other cases … nor
should the process be allowed so to dominate the enquiry”.
Stuvia
In the SCA judgment, it is confirmed that the court a quo had
placed undue reliance on a table of previous awards and
treated them as fixed markers, rather than as flexible
indicators. SAFLII+1
Therefore, the correct approach is to consult comparable
awards to understand the trend and range, but not to
mechanically select an award or escalate arbitrarily.
(iii) The court must evaluate the unique factual matrix of the
case
In the SCA’s summary of facts, the minor child’s neurological
injury occurring during labour, resulting in severe impairment,
was the basis for general damages. SAFLII+1
The SCA emphasised that the quantum must reflect the
severity, duration, nature and consequences of the injury in
the specific circumstances (including future suffering, loss of
30 October 2025; 100 % TRUSTED workings,
Expert Solved, Explanations and Solutions.
1.1 How the court a quo should have approached comparable
cases when assessing general damages
In the judgment of MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial
Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91
(“the SCA judgment”) the majority emphasised the correct
role of previous awards (comparable cases) in assessing
general damages (non-patrimonial loss). The critique of the
court a quo and the guidance given provide a roadmap of the
proper approach. Below I set out the key points, with legal
authority.
(i) Discretion lies with the court to assess quantum
The SCA affirmed that in assessing general (non-patrimonial)
damages the trial court exercises a discretion. The earlier
decision of De Jongh v Du Pisanie NO 2005 (5) SA 457 (SCA) is
instructive: Brand JA stated that the determination of a fair
amount of non-patrimonial damages “lies in the discretion of
the court”. Scribd+2Stuvia+2 The SCA judgment emphasises
that comparable past awards are only guides and not binding.
Stuvia+3Studocu+3SAFLII+3
Thus, the court a quo should have acknowledged its discretion
and not treated previous awards as de facto tariffs.
, (ii) Comparable cases should serve as guidance, not rigid
benchmarks
In De Jongh, it was held that comparison with previous cases
“provides the court with wide parameters within which the
quantum of its award should appropriately fall”. Stuvia+1 And
that “the process of comparison does not take the form of a
meticulous examination of awards made in other cases … nor
should the process be allowed so to dominate the enquiry”.
Stuvia
In the SCA judgment, it is confirmed that the court a quo had
placed undue reliance on a table of previous awards and
treated them as fixed markers, rather than as flexible
indicators. SAFLII+1
Therefore, the correct approach is to consult comparable
awards to understand the trend and range, but not to
mechanically select an award or escalate arbitrarily.
(iii) The court must evaluate the unique factual matrix of the
case
In the SCA’s summary of facts, the minor child’s neurological
injury occurring during labour, resulting in severe impairment,
was the basis for general damages. SAFLII+1
The SCA emphasised that the quantum must reflect the
severity, duration, nature and consequences of the injury in
the specific circumstances (including future suffering, loss of
