, TLI4801
EXAM PORTFOLIO SEMESTER 2 2025 COMPLETE ANSWERS
DUE DATE: 23-28 OCTOBER 2025
QUESTION 1 – CIVIL PRACTICE
(a) Advisability and Benefits of a Letter of Demand (6 Marks)
Before instituting formal legal proceedings against Slip and Shiny Hotel (Pty) Ltd, it is
procedurally advisable and strategically sound for Mrs N Slipper to issue a letter of
demand. Although not expressly required under the Uniform Rules of Court, South
African courts encourage litigants to use pre-action correspondence as part of the
overarching duty to facilitate the “effective, economic and expeditious disposal of
litigation” as emphasised in Rule 37A(1). A letter of demand functions as a pre-
litigation notice that informs the prospective defendant of the claim, the underlying
facts, the quantum of damages, and a period within which payment or remedial
action is expected.
From a substantive standpoint, the letter allows Mrs Slipper to set out the delictual
cause of action: namely, that the hotel owed a legal duty of care to its guests to
maintain reasonably safe premises, that the duty was breached through negligence
by failing to monitor the slippery limestone floor, and that she suffered foreseeable
harm in the form of a fractured hip (see Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A),
where the test for negligence was formulated). This notice would demand
compensation of approximately R425 000 for both past and future medical costs,
and would further advise that general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of
amenities will be pursued should the matter proceed to court.
The benefits of a letter of demand include:
• It promotes the possibility of an early settlement, thereby avoiding litigation costs
and conserving judicial resources (Rule 37A read with Herbstein & Van Winsen, Civil
Practice of the High Courts, 2022: 127).
, • It demonstrates good faith and procedural fairness, supporting the audi alteram
partem principle by giving the hotel an opportunity to respond before litigation
ensues.
• It creates a documentary record proving that the defendant was placed in mora,
which later assists in establishing default or in supporting a punitive cost order if the
defendant acted unreasonably.
• It clarifies the issues in dispute, often eliciting a denial or partial admission that
guides the drafting of pleadings.
Therefore, commencing with a letter of demand accords with the modern ethos of
civil justice reform reflected in the Judicial Matters Amendment Act 8 of 2017, which
encourages non-adversarial resolution and aligns with the constitutional imperatives
of access to justice and efficient case management under section 34 of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
(b) Provisional Sentence Summons or Combined Summons (4 Marks)
After the hotel fails to respond, Mrs Slipper must determine the appropriate form of
summons to institute her action. Under Rule 8 of the Uniform Rules, a provisional-
sentence summons may be used only where the plaintiff’s claim is founded upon a
liquid document—that is, a written instrument signed by the debtor acknowledging
indebtedness in a fixed or easily ascertainable amount (see Standard Bank v
Oneanate Investments (Pty) Ltd 1998 (1) SA 811 (SCA)). Mrs Slipper’s claim arises
from a delictual cause of action—personal-injury damages grounded in negligence—
and is therefore unliquidated because the amount of compensation depends on
judicial assessment, not contractual certainty.
Consequently, she must issue a combined summons in terms of Rule 17(2)(a). A
combined summons is specifically designed for actions where the relief claimed is
unliquidated, and it must be accompanied by Particulars of Claim in which the
material facts (facta probanda) are fully pleaded. In contrast, a simple summons
(Rule 17(2)(b)) or provisional-sentence procedure would be inappropriate and
potentially struck out for failing to disclose a proper cause of action (Nedbank Ltd v
EXAM PORTFOLIO SEMESTER 2 2025 COMPLETE ANSWERS
DUE DATE: 23-28 OCTOBER 2025
QUESTION 1 – CIVIL PRACTICE
(a) Advisability and Benefits of a Letter of Demand (6 Marks)
Before instituting formal legal proceedings against Slip and Shiny Hotel (Pty) Ltd, it is
procedurally advisable and strategically sound for Mrs N Slipper to issue a letter of
demand. Although not expressly required under the Uniform Rules of Court, South
African courts encourage litigants to use pre-action correspondence as part of the
overarching duty to facilitate the “effective, economic and expeditious disposal of
litigation” as emphasised in Rule 37A(1). A letter of demand functions as a pre-
litigation notice that informs the prospective defendant of the claim, the underlying
facts, the quantum of damages, and a period within which payment or remedial
action is expected.
From a substantive standpoint, the letter allows Mrs Slipper to set out the delictual
cause of action: namely, that the hotel owed a legal duty of care to its guests to
maintain reasonably safe premises, that the duty was breached through negligence
by failing to monitor the slippery limestone floor, and that she suffered foreseeable
harm in the form of a fractured hip (see Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A),
where the test for negligence was formulated). This notice would demand
compensation of approximately R425 000 for both past and future medical costs,
and would further advise that general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of
amenities will be pursued should the matter proceed to court.
The benefits of a letter of demand include:
• It promotes the possibility of an early settlement, thereby avoiding litigation costs
and conserving judicial resources (Rule 37A read with Herbstein & Van Winsen, Civil
Practice of the High Courts, 2022: 127).
, • It demonstrates good faith and procedural fairness, supporting the audi alteram
partem principle by giving the hotel an opportunity to respond before litigation
ensues.
• It creates a documentary record proving that the defendant was placed in mora,
which later assists in establishing default or in supporting a punitive cost order if the
defendant acted unreasonably.
• It clarifies the issues in dispute, often eliciting a denial or partial admission that
guides the drafting of pleadings.
Therefore, commencing with a letter of demand accords with the modern ethos of
civil justice reform reflected in the Judicial Matters Amendment Act 8 of 2017, which
encourages non-adversarial resolution and aligns with the constitutional imperatives
of access to justice and efficient case management under section 34 of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
(b) Provisional Sentence Summons or Combined Summons (4 Marks)
After the hotel fails to respond, Mrs Slipper must determine the appropriate form of
summons to institute her action. Under Rule 8 of the Uniform Rules, a provisional-
sentence summons may be used only where the plaintiff’s claim is founded upon a
liquid document—that is, a written instrument signed by the debtor acknowledging
indebtedness in a fixed or easily ascertainable amount (see Standard Bank v
Oneanate Investments (Pty) Ltd 1998 (1) SA 811 (SCA)). Mrs Slipper’s claim arises
from a delictual cause of action—personal-injury damages grounded in negligence—
and is therefore unliquidated because the amount of compensation depends on
judicial assessment, not contractual certainty.
Consequently, she must issue a combined summons in terms of Rule 17(2)(a). A
combined summons is specifically designed for actions where the relief claimed is
unliquidated, and it must be accompanied by Particulars of Claim in which the
material facts (facta probanda) are fully pleaded. In contrast, a simple summons
(Rule 17(2)(b)) or provisional-sentence procedure would be inappropriate and
potentially struck out for failing to disclose a proper cause of action (Nedbank Ltd v
