LPL4802
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 28 AUGUST 2025
, Mahlangu v Ngubane: An Analysis Through the Legal Concepts of Wrongfulness
and Negligence
Introduction
In South African delict law, the concepts of wrongfulness and negligence are distinct
but interrelated elements that determine liability for patrimonial loss caused by another's
conduct. In the fictional case of Mahlangu v Ngubane, the dispute arises from a fire that
originated on Ms. Ngubane’s farm and spread to Mr. Mahlangu’s timber plantation,
resulting in significant financial loss. This essay provides an analysis of how a South
African court would examine the claims and defences based on these two core
concepts and concludes with a determination on the likelihood of delictual liability.
1. Wrongfulness: Legal Duty and Reasonableness of the Omission
Definition and Test
Wrongfulness refers to the breach of a legal duty not to cause harm to others. In the
case of omissions, wrongfulness is determined by asking whether, in the light of public
policy and constitutional values, a legal duty existed to act positively to prevent harm.
The Constitutional Court in Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC) explained that
wrongfulness functions as a mechanism to determine the legally actionable nature of
harm, distinct from negligence, which deals with the foreseeability and avoidability of
harm.
In Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC), the Court held
that wrongfulness involves a value judgment and considers whether the law imposes a
duty to prevent harm in circumstances where it is foreseeable and preventable.
Application to the Scenario
In Mahlangu v Ngubane, Mr. Mahlangu claims that Ms. Ngubane wrongfully failed to
maintain her firebreaks and did not take extra precautions despite foreseeable risks.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 28 AUGUST 2025
, Mahlangu v Ngubane: An Analysis Through the Legal Concepts of Wrongfulness
and Negligence
Introduction
In South African delict law, the concepts of wrongfulness and negligence are distinct
but interrelated elements that determine liability for patrimonial loss caused by another's
conduct. In the fictional case of Mahlangu v Ngubane, the dispute arises from a fire that
originated on Ms. Ngubane’s farm and spread to Mr. Mahlangu’s timber plantation,
resulting in significant financial loss. This essay provides an analysis of how a South
African court would examine the claims and defences based on these two core
concepts and concludes with a determination on the likelihood of delictual liability.
1. Wrongfulness: Legal Duty and Reasonableness of the Omission
Definition and Test
Wrongfulness refers to the breach of a legal duty not to cause harm to others. In the
case of omissions, wrongfulness is determined by asking whether, in the light of public
policy and constitutional values, a legal duty existed to act positively to prevent harm.
The Constitutional Court in Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC) explained that
wrongfulness functions as a mechanism to determine the legally actionable nature of
harm, distinct from negligence, which deals with the foreseeability and avoidability of
harm.
In Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC), the Court held
that wrongfulness involves a value judgment and considers whether the law imposes a
duty to prevent harm in circumstances where it is foreseeable and preventable.
Application to the Scenario
In Mahlangu v Ngubane, Mr. Mahlangu claims that Ms. Ngubane wrongfully failed to
maintain her firebreaks and did not take extra precautions despite foreseeable risks.
