LPL4802 October
November Portfolio
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
30 October 2025
NO PLAGIARISIM
[School]
[Course title]
, Exam (elaborations)
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 30
October 2025
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 30 October
2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO PERSONALITY)
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. (15
marks) 1.2How should general damages be assessed in cases involving unconsciousness?
Support your answer with the relevant authority as cited in the prescribed textbook. (10 marks)
[25 marks] his response addresses the assessment of non-patrimonial loss (general damages)
concerning the treatment of comparable cases and the specialized approach required for cases
involving permanent unconsciousness, based on established legal principles relevant to the
fictional judgment, MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS [2025]
ZASCA 91.
The Assessment of General Damages for Non-Patrimonial Loss
The assessment of general damages—which encompasses non-patrimonial losses such as pain
and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement—is inherently complex due to the
subjective nature of the injury to the personality. The court’s primary duty in determining such
an award is to exercise its discretion judiciously, ensuring the figure is fair to both the claimant
and the defendant.
1.1 The Court’s Approach to Comparable Cases in Assessing General Damages
According to established jurisprudence, which the majority judgment in MEC for Health v AAS
would have relied upon, the court a quo should have approached comparable cases as a guide,
rather than a rigid tariff.
The seminal authority on this matter is the Appellate Division (now Supreme Court of Appeal)
judgment in Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb, which laid down the principle that while previous
awards may be looked at to derive some assistance, the court must not treat them as
November Portfolio
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
30 October 2025
NO PLAGIARISIM
[School]
[Course title]
, Exam (elaborations)
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 30
October 2025
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 30 October
2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO PERSONALITY)
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. (15
marks) 1.2How should general damages be assessed in cases involving unconsciousness?
Support your answer with the relevant authority as cited in the prescribed textbook. (10 marks)
[25 marks] his response addresses the assessment of non-patrimonial loss (general damages)
concerning the treatment of comparable cases and the specialized approach required for cases
involving permanent unconsciousness, based on established legal principles relevant to the
fictional judgment, MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS [2025]
ZASCA 91.
The Assessment of General Damages for Non-Patrimonial Loss
The assessment of general damages—which encompasses non-patrimonial losses such as pain
and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement—is inherently complex due to the
subjective nature of the injury to the personality. The court’s primary duty in determining such
an award is to exercise its discretion judiciously, ensuring the figure is fair to both the claimant
and the defendant.
1.1 The Court’s Approach to Comparable Cases in Assessing General Damages
According to established jurisprudence, which the majority judgment in MEC for Health v AAS
would have relied upon, the court a quo should have approached comparable cases as a guide,
rather than a rigid tariff.
The seminal authority on this matter is the Appellate Division (now Supreme Court of Appeal)
judgment in Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb, which laid down the principle that while previous
awards may be looked at to derive some assistance, the court must not treat them as
