LPL4802
Assignment 1
Semester 2
Unique No: 689451
DUE 28 August 2025
, DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE LAW
LPL4802: LAW OF DAMAGES
SEMESTER 2, ASSIGNMENT 01
Unique Number: 689451
Due Date: 28 August 2025
Essay
Introduction
South African delict law requires courts to carefully distinguish between the concepts of
wrongfulness and negligence when adjudicating claims for patrimonial loss. These
elements, though often confused, play distinct roles in determining liability.
Wrongfulness addresses whether conduct is legally unacceptable, while negligence
addresses whether the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of the reasonable
person. The case of Mahlangu v Ngubane, set against the background of catastrophic
fire damage, provides an important opportunity to apply these principles in practice.
In this essay, I will:
1. Theoretically distinguish wrongfulness from negligence.
2. Apply both concepts independently to the facts of Mahlangu v Ngubane.
3. Integrate at least five case authorities and relevant statutory provisions,
particularly the National Veld and Forest Fires Act 101 of 1998.
4. Engage with Visser & Potgieter’s theoretical framework of damages, particularly
the nature, proof, and remoteness of damage.
5. Critically evaluate fairness, public policy, and possible outcomes.
The essay argues that while Mr. Mahlangu’s patrimonial damage is undeniable, the
legal framework suggests that liability will not easily be imposed on Ms. Ngubane, given
Assignment 1
Semester 2
Unique No: 689451
DUE 28 August 2025
, DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE LAW
LPL4802: LAW OF DAMAGES
SEMESTER 2, ASSIGNMENT 01
Unique Number: 689451
Due Date: 28 August 2025
Essay
Introduction
South African delict law requires courts to carefully distinguish between the concepts of
wrongfulness and negligence when adjudicating claims for patrimonial loss. These
elements, though often confused, play distinct roles in determining liability.
Wrongfulness addresses whether conduct is legally unacceptable, while negligence
addresses whether the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of the reasonable
person. The case of Mahlangu v Ngubane, set against the background of catastrophic
fire damage, provides an important opportunity to apply these principles in practice.
In this essay, I will:
1. Theoretically distinguish wrongfulness from negligence.
2. Apply both concepts independently to the facts of Mahlangu v Ngubane.
3. Integrate at least five case authorities and relevant statutory provisions,
particularly the National Veld and Forest Fires Act 101 of 1998.
4. Engage with Visser & Potgieter’s theoretical framework of damages, particularly
the nature, proof, and remoteness of damage.
5. Critically evaluate fairness, public policy, and possible outcomes.
The essay argues that while Mr. Mahlangu’s patrimonial damage is undeniable, the
legal framework suggests that liability will not easily be imposed on Ms. Ngubane, given
