[Type the company name]
LPL4802 MAY JUNE
PORTFILIO
(COMPLETE
ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 -
DUE 29 May 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
,Exam (elaborations)
LPL4802 MAY JUNE PORTFILIO (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025 (690828) - DUE
29 May 2025
Course
Law of Damages (LPL4802)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Law of Damages Through the Cases
LPL4802 MAY JUNE PORTFILIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025
(690828) - DUE 29 May 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations. Ensure your success with us. ...
QUESTION 1 [15 marks] Critically discuss Ngubane v RAF 2022 (5) SA 231
(GJ), a copy of which is provided for your reference. Your answer must clearly
demonstrate that you have read and understood the case. Marking criteria
Marks will be awarded as follows: • Facts of the case (2), • Legal question
(1), • Judgment and ratio decidendi (10), • Stating whether you
agree/disagree with the judgment and provide specific reason(s) for your
answer (2).
Ngubane v Road Accident Fund 2022 (5) SA 231 (GJ)
1. Facts of the Case (2 marks)
Mr Ngubane, the plaintiff, was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed
compensation from the Road Accident Fund (RAF). He sought general damages for pain and
suffering, loss of amenities of life, and past and future loss of income. The dispute arose
specifically around the assessment of general damages, which requires certification by the
RAF Appeal Tribunal under the RAF Act and related regulations.
The RAF rejected Mr Ngubane’s claim for general damages, arguing that his injuries were not
"serious" as defined under the RAF Amendment Act 19 of 2005, and thus did not qualify for
compensation.
2. Legal Question (1 mark)
, The core legal question was:
"Can a court grant general damages to a plaintiff whose injuries were rejected as 'not
serious' by the RAF Appeal Tribunal, or is the tribunal's decision final?"
3. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi (10 marks)
The High Court (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg) held in favour of Mr Ngubane, allowing
his claim for general damages despite the RAF’s rejection. The court made several key findings:
a. Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions
The court held that decisions of the RAF Appeal Tribunal are not immune from judicial
review. If the tribunal’s decision is unreasonable, irrational, or procedurally unfair, a court is
entitled to set aside or disregard such a decision.
b. Interpretation of "Serious Injury"
The court found that Mr Ngubane had suffered substantial and lasting physical and
psychological trauma, affecting his daily functioning and ability to work. The court ruled that
these injuries ought to be classified as "serious" under Regulation 3 of the RAF regulations.
c. Tribunal’s Failure to Apply Correct Standards
The court criticised the tribunal for failing to consider relevant evidence, particularly from
expert medical witnesses. It noted procedural irregularities and found the tribunal’s decision
arbitrary and unjust.
d. Court’s Power to Intervene
Importantly, the judgment reaffirmed that courts have the power to override administrative
tribunal decisions when they amount to a violation of constitutional rights, such as the right to
access courts and just administrative action (section 33 of the Constitution).
Ratio Decidendi (Core Reasoning):
The tribunal’s decision was irrational and procedurally unfair.
The plaintiff’s injuries met the statutory threshold for "serious injury".
A court may disregard or override an administrative decision when it contravenes the
principles of legality and reasonableness.
4. Personal Position (Agree/Disagree with Judgment) (2 marks)
LPL4802 MAY JUNE
PORTFILIO
(COMPLETE
ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 -
DUE 29 May 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
,Exam (elaborations)
LPL4802 MAY JUNE PORTFILIO (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025 (690828) - DUE
29 May 2025
Course
Law of Damages (LPL4802)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Law of Damages Through the Cases
LPL4802 MAY JUNE PORTFILIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025
(690828) - DUE 29 May 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations. Ensure your success with us. ...
QUESTION 1 [15 marks] Critically discuss Ngubane v RAF 2022 (5) SA 231
(GJ), a copy of which is provided for your reference. Your answer must clearly
demonstrate that you have read and understood the case. Marking criteria
Marks will be awarded as follows: • Facts of the case (2), • Legal question
(1), • Judgment and ratio decidendi (10), • Stating whether you
agree/disagree with the judgment and provide specific reason(s) for your
answer (2).
Ngubane v Road Accident Fund 2022 (5) SA 231 (GJ)
1. Facts of the Case (2 marks)
Mr Ngubane, the plaintiff, was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed
compensation from the Road Accident Fund (RAF). He sought general damages for pain and
suffering, loss of amenities of life, and past and future loss of income. The dispute arose
specifically around the assessment of general damages, which requires certification by the
RAF Appeal Tribunal under the RAF Act and related regulations.
The RAF rejected Mr Ngubane’s claim for general damages, arguing that his injuries were not
"serious" as defined under the RAF Amendment Act 19 of 2005, and thus did not qualify for
compensation.
2. Legal Question (1 mark)
, The core legal question was:
"Can a court grant general damages to a plaintiff whose injuries were rejected as 'not
serious' by the RAF Appeal Tribunal, or is the tribunal's decision final?"
3. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi (10 marks)
The High Court (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg) held in favour of Mr Ngubane, allowing
his claim for general damages despite the RAF’s rejection. The court made several key findings:
a. Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions
The court held that decisions of the RAF Appeal Tribunal are not immune from judicial
review. If the tribunal’s decision is unreasonable, irrational, or procedurally unfair, a court is
entitled to set aside or disregard such a decision.
b. Interpretation of "Serious Injury"
The court found that Mr Ngubane had suffered substantial and lasting physical and
psychological trauma, affecting his daily functioning and ability to work. The court ruled that
these injuries ought to be classified as "serious" under Regulation 3 of the RAF regulations.
c. Tribunal’s Failure to Apply Correct Standards
The court criticised the tribunal for failing to consider relevant evidence, particularly from
expert medical witnesses. It noted procedural irregularities and found the tribunal’s decision
arbitrary and unjust.
d. Court’s Power to Intervene
Importantly, the judgment reaffirmed that courts have the power to override administrative
tribunal decisions when they amount to a violation of constitutional rights, such as the right to
access courts and just administrative action (section 33 of the Constitution).
Ratio Decidendi (Core Reasoning):
The tribunal’s decision was irrational and procedurally unfair.
The plaintiff’s injuries met the statutory threshold for "serious injury".
A court may disregard or override an administrative decision when it contravenes the
principles of legality and reasonableness.
4. Personal Position (Agree/Disagree with Judgment) (2 marks)
