, LPL4802 Assignment 1 Semester 2 2025
AN ADVANCED LEGAL ANALYSIS OF WRONGFULNESS AND NEGLIGENCE IN
MAHLANGU v NGUBANE
INTRODUCTION
The case scenario of Mahlangu v Ngubane presents a complex factual and legal
matrix within which the South African law of delict must operate, particularly in the
assessment of omissions involving landowners in rural fire management contexts. At
the heart of the dispute is a claim for patrimonial damages flowing from an
uncontrolled wildfire, with the plaintiff alleging wrongful and negligent conduct on
the part of the defendant. In South African delictual jurisprudence, the legal inquiry
into liability for omissions entails two independent yet interdependent elements:
wrongfulness and negligence. The nuanced demarcation between these concepts is
essential for maintaining doctrinal clarity and consistency in adjudicating civil claims.
This essay interrogates the applicable legal principles, evaluates the evidence in light
of relevant case law, and advances a reasoned argument as to whether liability is
likely to be imposed on Ms. Ngubane under the prevailing legal framework.
THE CONCEPT OF WRONGFULNESS: A POLICY-BASED THRESHOLD IN CASES OF
OMISSION
Wrongfulness in delict is a normative inquiry: it asks whether the defendant’s
conduct, or more specifically omission, transgressed a legally recognised duty not to
cause harm to others in a manner that society deems unacceptable. In cases of
omission—where harm results from a failure to act rather than a positive act—the
imposition of liability requires the existence of a legal duty, the breach of which
renders the conduct wrongful1.
The foundational authority remains Minister van Polisie v Ewels, where the Appellate
Division held that an omission is wrongful when it fails to prevent harm in
circumstances where the omission is regarded by the legal convictions of the
community (boni mores) as sufficiently blameworthy²2. In Mahlangu v Ngubane, the
question is not whether Ms. Ngubane caused the fire, but whether she failed in a
1
Neethling, J., Potgieter, J.M., & Visser, P.J. Law of Delict, 8th ed. (2020) at 31.
2
Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A) at 597E-G.
AN ADVANCED LEGAL ANALYSIS OF WRONGFULNESS AND NEGLIGENCE IN
MAHLANGU v NGUBANE
INTRODUCTION
The case scenario of Mahlangu v Ngubane presents a complex factual and legal
matrix within which the South African law of delict must operate, particularly in the
assessment of omissions involving landowners in rural fire management contexts. At
the heart of the dispute is a claim for patrimonial damages flowing from an
uncontrolled wildfire, with the plaintiff alleging wrongful and negligent conduct on
the part of the defendant. In South African delictual jurisprudence, the legal inquiry
into liability for omissions entails two independent yet interdependent elements:
wrongfulness and negligence. The nuanced demarcation between these concepts is
essential for maintaining doctrinal clarity and consistency in adjudicating civil claims.
This essay interrogates the applicable legal principles, evaluates the evidence in light
of relevant case law, and advances a reasoned argument as to whether liability is
likely to be imposed on Ms. Ngubane under the prevailing legal framework.
THE CONCEPT OF WRONGFULNESS: A POLICY-BASED THRESHOLD IN CASES OF
OMISSION
Wrongfulness in delict is a normative inquiry: it asks whether the defendant’s
conduct, or more specifically omission, transgressed a legally recognised duty not to
cause harm to others in a manner that society deems unacceptable. In cases of
omission—where harm results from a failure to act rather than a positive act—the
imposition of liability requires the existence of a legal duty, the breach of which
renders the conduct wrongful1.
The foundational authority remains Minister van Polisie v Ewels, where the Appellate
Division held that an omission is wrongful when it fails to prevent harm in
circumstances where the omission is regarded by the legal convictions of the
community (boni mores) as sufficiently blameworthy²2. In Mahlangu v Ngubane, the
question is not whether Ms. Ngubane caused the fire, but whether she failed in a
1
Neethling, J., Potgieter, J.M., & Visser, P.J. Law of Delict, 8th ed. (2020) at 31.
2
Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A) at 597E-G.
