LPL4802 ASSIGNMENT 1 ESSAY MEMO - SEMESTER 2 - 2025 UNISA – DUE DATE: - 28 AUGUST 2025 (DETAILED ANSWERS WITH FOOTNOTES AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!)

LPL4802 ASSIGNMENT 1 ESSAY MEMO - SEMESTER 2 - 2025 UNISA – DUE DATE: - 28 AUGUST 2025 (DETAILED ANSWERS WITH FOOTNOTES AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!) DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE LAW LAW OF DAMAGES MODULE CODE: LPL4802 YEAR: 2025 SEMESTER: 02 ASSIGNMENT NO: 01 ASSESSMENT TYPE: Written UNIQUE NUMBER: 689451 DUE DATE: 28 August 2025 TIME: 17:00 TOTAL MARKS: 25 INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS a) Paragraph your work clearly and objectively, and use correct, relevant legal writing. b) Use Arial, 12-point, and justify your work. c) Footnotes are compulsory where you refer to authority. d) Include a Bibliography at the end of the essay. e) Sign and annex an Academic Declaration of Honesty to your answer. f) Attach the rubric to your typed assignment after converting it to PDF. g) For academic queries, contact: • Adv. M. Khumalo — — • Mrs. R. Mahomed — — h) All assignments must be submitted before the due date on myModules. No posted or emailed assignments, before or after the submission date, will be accepted. QUESTION SCENARIO In the rural hills of eNquthu, in the uMzinyathi District of KwaZulu-Natal, a community of small- to medium-scale black farmers has developed a reputation for sustainable commercial agriculture over the last two decades. Among them is Mr Andile Mahlangu, a second-generation eucalyptus and wattle farmer who inherited over 150 hectares of land from his late father. His operation supplies timber to a pulp processing plant and employs more than 20 local residents. Adjacent to Mahlangu’s land is a government-owned farm leased to Ms Nokuthula Ngubane, an agriculturalist known for mentoring young farmers and for her livestock and grassland management skills. Through the Rural Development Support Programme, Ngubane was placed on this farm as part of a post-settlement land reform initiative. Her responsibilities include maintaining natural grasslands, managing firebreaks, and running a small but growing cattle operation. On the afternoon of 13 August 2023, dry, gusty winds swept across eNquthu. A fire—believed to have started from a lightning strike or possibly stray embers from a roadside rubbish burn—ignited on the north-western corner of Ms Ngubane’s farm. Her workers responded quickly, activating fire protocols, deploying water units, and calling local firefighting volunteers. Despite these efforts, a rapid wind shift occurred. The fire jumped a boundary firebreak, crossed a small stream, and entered Mr Mahlangu’s eucalyptus grove. Within hours, flames engulfed more than 40 hectares of plantation, destroying mature timber ready for harvest as well as younger saplings. The economic loss exceeded R5.2 million, including damage to infrastructure, machinery, and future harvests. The fire was eventually contained after sunset, aided by neighbouring farmers and community firefighters. In the aftermath, Mr Mahlangu lodged a delictual claim against Ms Ngubane, alleging that her negligent failure to contain the fire and protect adjacent land amounted to a wrongful omission for which she bears legal liability. He contends that she did not properly maintain firebreaks in certain areas, failed to notify neighbouring farmers in time to mount a joint response, and should have foreseen the risk of such fires and taken additional steps to prevent their spread, given the dry conditions and proximity to commercial plantations. Ms Ngubane, in defence, presents detailed records of her fire management activities: satellite imagery and dated photographs showing regularly cleared firebreaks; a signed fire risk assessment (June 2023) by the local Fire Protection Association; expert testimony confirming that, under the prevailing wind conditions, the fire would have breached any standard firebreak; and evidence that she responded swiftly and in line with best-practice norms for smallholder farms in the region. She denies negligence, arguing that while she regrets the loss, she has no legal duty to guarantee absolute protection of adjacent farms, especially where she acted reasonably and the fire’s behaviour was unpredictable due to extreme weather. The matter is referred to the High Court, Pietermaritzburg. Legal representatives present expert testimony on fire behaviour, land management responsibilities, and rural fire control standards. Central to the court’s analysis is whether Ms Ngubane’s conduct—even if not negligent in the conventional sense—constitutes wrongfulness. In submissions, Mr Mahlangu’s attorneys argue that Ms Ngubane’s omission (failing to take extraordinary precautions, such as early-season controlled burns or additional artificial barriers) breaches a legal duty to prevent foreseeable harm. They emphasise the special vulnerability of timber plantations and the reliance neighbouring farmers place on each other’s fire management. Ms Ngubane’s team argues that imposing such a legal duty would be excessively burdensome, particularly for small-scale, government-supported farmers. Liability should arise only where conduct significantly falls below the standard of reasonableness—not where the risk would not have been avoided even with best precautions. BACKGROUND The concepts of wrongfulness and negligence are often confused yet play distinct roles in South African delict law. In Mahlangu v Ngubane (scenario above), a devastating fire ignited on Ms Ngubane’s farm during the routine burning of old crop residue. Despite efforts to contain it, strong winds caused the fire to spread into Mr Mahlangu’s commercial timber plantation, destroying several hectares of pine ready for harvest. Mr Mahlangu sues for patrimonial damages, alleging wrongful and negligent conduct. Ms Ngubane defends the action, asserting that she took all reasonable steps and cannot be held responsible for the sudden change in wind direction. QUESTION 1: ESSAY Provide a clear description of how a South African court would analyse the claims and defences in Mahlangu v Ngubane using the legal concepts of wrongfulness and negligence. In doing so, clearly distinguish between the two concepts and discuss how they are assessed independently. Furthermore, with reference to relevant legal authority, determine whether liability is likely to be imposed, and on what basis. In your answer, you must: • Refer to at least five specific cases (with paragraph references), which must include: 1. MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Swart NO 2017 (5) SA 76 (SCA) 2. Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA) 3. Loureiro and Others v Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd 2014 (3) SA 394 (CC) 4. Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v South African National Roads Agency Ltd 2009 (2) SA 150 (SCA) 5. Le Roux and Others v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC) and the National Veld and Forest Fires Act 101 of 1998. • Consider the theoretical framework of damage in Chapter 2 (pp 27–50) of Visser & Potgieter, Law of Damages (2012). • Accessing cases: Go to Unisa Library on myModules → Services for undergraduate students → Find e-resources → under A-Z databases, select JutaStat-e Publications → in the left panel choose South African Law Reports, The (1947–present) → Chronological listing of cases. Use these reports rather than internet sources. Length: Not more than seven printed pages, excluding cover page, rubric, and bibliography. Essays over ten pages will not be marked. TOTAL MARKS: 25