ACADEMIC DECLARATION OF HONESTY
Declaration: ……………………………..
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of UNISA’s policies
in this regard.
2. I declare that this Exam is my own, original work. Where I have used someone else’s
work, I have indicated this by using the prescribed style of referencing. Every
contribution to, and quotation in this Exam from the work or works of other people has been
referenced according to this style.
3. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of
passing it off as his or her own work.
4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submitted it as my own.
NAME: MORMED SITHOLE
STUDENT NUMBER: 51958813
MODULE CODE: LPL4802
SIGNATURE: M.SITHOLE
DATE: 01/01/21
, 2
NAME: MORMED SITHOLE
STUDENT NUMBER: 51958813
MODULE CODE: LPL 4802
PORTFOLIO 2021
QUESTION 1
In the case of Economic Freedom Fighters and others v Manuel 2021 (3) SA 425
(SCA) the court emphasised on a proper process to for prosecuting an liquidated claim, it
was stated in the judgement that An unliquidated claim for damages must be pursued by
institution of an action. No less so, when an aggrieved victim of a defamatory statement
seeks compensation.
Uniform Rule 17(2) compels a person claiming unliquidated damages to use a long form
summons and file particulars of claim, and Uniform Rule 18(10) obliges ‘a plaintiff suing for
damages to set them out in such manner as will enable the defendant reasonably to
assess the quantum thereof’ and plead thereto.
In respect of damages claims for personal injury the rule requires even greater specificity.
Summary judgment proceedings, regulated by Uniform Rule 32, are limited to claims
based on a liquid document, a liquidated amount in money, the delivery of specified
movable property, and ejectment. It is not a remedy available in respect of claims for
unliquidated damages.
In Grindrod (Pty) Ltd v Delport and Others the court, in dealing with Uniform Rule 18(10),
said that it ‘enjoins any party claiming damages to provide sufficient information to enable
the opposing party to know why the particular amount being claimed as damages is in fact
being claimed. Failure by a plaintiff to meet the requirement of this rule might well compel
a defendant to resort to the provisions of Uniform Rule 18(12), in terms of which the
pleadings, because of the deficiency, are deemed to be an irregular step.
In undefended actions in which unliquidated damages are claimed, our courts, have
insisted on hearing viva voce evidence in order to make a proper assessment and issue
an appropriate award. In Venter v Nel the court, in dealing with a claim by a plaintiff for
damages she sustained as a consequence of being infected with HIV during a sexual
encounter, noted that it was dealing with an undefended action, and said the following:
Declaration: ……………………………..
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of UNISA’s policies
in this regard.
2. I declare that this Exam is my own, original work. Where I have used someone else’s
work, I have indicated this by using the prescribed style of referencing. Every
contribution to, and quotation in this Exam from the work or works of other people has been
referenced according to this style.
3. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of
passing it off as his or her own work.
4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submitted it as my own.
NAME: MORMED SITHOLE
STUDENT NUMBER: 51958813
MODULE CODE: LPL4802
SIGNATURE: M.SITHOLE
DATE: 01/01/21
, 2
NAME: MORMED SITHOLE
STUDENT NUMBER: 51958813
MODULE CODE: LPL 4802
PORTFOLIO 2021
QUESTION 1
In the case of Economic Freedom Fighters and others v Manuel 2021 (3) SA 425
(SCA) the court emphasised on a proper process to for prosecuting an liquidated claim, it
was stated in the judgement that An unliquidated claim for damages must be pursued by
institution of an action. No less so, when an aggrieved victim of a defamatory statement
seeks compensation.
Uniform Rule 17(2) compels a person claiming unliquidated damages to use a long form
summons and file particulars of claim, and Uniform Rule 18(10) obliges ‘a plaintiff suing for
damages to set them out in such manner as will enable the defendant reasonably to
assess the quantum thereof’ and plead thereto.
In respect of damages claims for personal injury the rule requires even greater specificity.
Summary judgment proceedings, regulated by Uniform Rule 32, are limited to claims
based on a liquid document, a liquidated amount in money, the delivery of specified
movable property, and ejectment. It is not a remedy available in respect of claims for
unliquidated damages.
In Grindrod (Pty) Ltd v Delport and Others the court, in dealing with Uniform Rule 18(10),
said that it ‘enjoins any party claiming damages to provide sufficient information to enable
the opposing party to know why the particular amount being claimed as damages is in fact
being claimed. Failure by a plaintiff to meet the requirement of this rule might well compel
a defendant to resort to the provisions of Uniform Rule 18(12), in terms of which the
pleadings, because of the deficiency, are deemed to be an irregular step.
In undefended actions in which unliquidated damages are claimed, our courts, have
insisted on hearing viva voce evidence in order to make a proper assessment and issue
an appropriate award. In Venter v Nel the court, in dealing with a claim by a plaintiff for
damages she sustained as a consequence of being infected with HIV during a sexual
encounter, noted that it was dealing with an undefended action, and said the following:
