, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY
TO PERSONALITY)
1. Study the attached judgment, MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo
CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91 (20 June 2025), and answer the questions that follow. Your
response must be written in essay format. Each substantive point you make, when supported by
relevant legal authority, will carry a value of two (2) marks.
1.1. According to the majority judgment, how should the court a quo have approached
comparable cases when assessing general damages? Discuss with reference to the relevant
authority cited in the judgment.
In the case of MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023)
[2025] ZASCA 91, the court of appeal reviewed the general damages awarded by the high court.
When assessing damages, especially general damages, the approach taken should carefully consider
previous comparable cases, while also maintaining the court's discretionary power. The high court
did not adopt a sufficiently critical approach to comparing previous awards. Although the high court
cited comparable cases, it did not explain the reasons for choosing specific cases or discuss how
these cases related to the present case in a meaningful way1 . This omission undermined the reasoned
basis required for such a discretionary award.
The proper approach, as reiterated in Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb (1971) 2 All SA 100 (A) and
Marine Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Goliath (1968) 4 SA 329 (A), is that a trial court should not simply
rely on previous awards as a mechanical exercise, but should critically assess the facts in the current
case and how they compare to those in past cases. For instance, in Saldulker J’s judgment in
Megalane NO v RAF (2006), it was emphasized that the court must take into account the specific
suffering, loss of amenities, and disability of the claimant2 . Therefore, the high court's approach in
MEC v AAS could have been more grounded in a nuanced understanding of the claimant’s unique
circumstances, rather than merely drawing on past awards without sufficient justification.
In addition, the court must ensure that any previous awards are adjusted for inflation and the current
purchasing power of money to reflect contemporary values1. Hence, while past cases provide a
guideline, they should not dictate the final amount but offer a frame of reference to help guide the
court's wide discretion.
1: (MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS 2025)
2: (Potgieter, L Steynberg & Tomas Berry Floyd 2012: p232)
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY
TO PERSONALITY)
1. Study the attached judgment, MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo
CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91 (20 June 2025), and answer the questions that follow. Your
response must be written in essay format. Each substantive point you make, when supported by
relevant legal authority, will carry a value of two (2) marks.
1.1. According to the majority judgment, how should the court a quo have approached
comparable cases when assessing general damages? Discuss with reference to the relevant
authority cited in the judgment.
In the case of MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023)
[2025] ZASCA 91, the court of appeal reviewed the general damages awarded by the high court.
When assessing damages, especially general damages, the approach taken should carefully consider
previous comparable cases, while also maintaining the court's discretionary power. The high court
did not adopt a sufficiently critical approach to comparing previous awards. Although the high court
cited comparable cases, it did not explain the reasons for choosing specific cases or discuss how
these cases related to the present case in a meaningful way1 . This omission undermined the reasoned
basis required for such a discretionary award.
The proper approach, as reiterated in Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb (1971) 2 All SA 100 (A) and
Marine Trade Insurance Co Ltd v Goliath (1968) 4 SA 329 (A), is that a trial court should not simply
rely on previous awards as a mechanical exercise, but should critically assess the facts in the current
case and how they compare to those in past cases. For instance, in Saldulker J’s judgment in
Megalane NO v RAF (2006), it was emphasized that the court must take into account the specific
suffering, loss of amenities, and disability of the claimant2 . Therefore, the high court's approach in
MEC v AAS could have been more grounded in a nuanced understanding of the claimant’s unique
circumstances, rather than merely drawing on past awards without sufficient justification.
In addition, the court must ensure that any previous awards are adjusted for inflation and the current
purchasing power of money to reflect contemporary values1. Hence, while past cases provide a
guideline, they should not dictate the final amount but offer a frame of reference to help guide the
court's wide discretion.
1: (MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS 2025)
2: (Potgieter, L Steynberg & Tomas Berry Floyd 2012: p232)
