LPL4802
OCT/NOV EXAM 2025
UNIQUE NO. 689535
DUE DATE: 30 OCTOBER 2025
, Law of Damages
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS
(INJURY TO PERSONALITY)
1.1 According to the majority judgment, how should the court a quo have
approached comparable cases when assessing general damages?
(15 marks)
In MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS [2025] ZASCA
91, the Supreme Court of Appeal (per Kgoele JA, majority) held that the High Court
erred in the method and principle it applied when assessing general damages for a
profoundly brain-damaged child. The proper approach requires a comparative and
contextual analysis, guided by established authority.
(a) Comparable cases are guidelines, not tariffs
The majority emphasised that earlier decisions in comparable cases should not be
applied mechanically. Each case must be decided on its own facts, because the
impact of an injury on a claimant’s life is unique.
The court cited Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A), where
Potgieter JA stated that previous awards serve only as “useful guides”, not
binding precedents or fixed tariffs.
This principle was reaffirmed in De Jongh v Du Pisanie NO 2005 (5) SA 457
(SCA), where Brand JA stressed that a comparison of awards must take into
account changing economic circumstances, inflation, and societal values.
Thus, the court a quo should have used prior awards as benchmarks for consistency,
not as prescriptive figures.
OCT/NOV EXAM 2025
UNIQUE NO. 689535
DUE DATE: 30 OCTOBER 2025
, Law of Damages
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS
(INJURY TO PERSONALITY)
1.1 According to the majority judgment, how should the court a quo have
approached comparable cases when assessing general damages?
(15 marks)
In MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS [2025] ZASCA
91, the Supreme Court of Appeal (per Kgoele JA, majority) held that the High Court
erred in the method and principle it applied when assessing general damages for a
profoundly brain-damaged child. The proper approach requires a comparative and
contextual analysis, guided by established authority.
(a) Comparable cases are guidelines, not tariffs
The majority emphasised that earlier decisions in comparable cases should not be
applied mechanically. Each case must be decided on its own facts, because the
impact of an injury on a claimant’s life is unique.
The court cited Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A), where
Potgieter JA stated that previous awards serve only as “useful guides”, not
binding precedents or fixed tariffs.
This principle was reaffirmed in De Jongh v Du Pisanie NO 2005 (5) SA 457
(SCA), where Brand JA stressed that a comparison of awards must take into
account changing economic circumstances, inflation, and societal values.
Thus, the court a quo should have used prior awards as benchmarks for consistency,
not as prescriptive figures.
