PORTFOLIO Semester 2 2025
2 2025
Unique Number:
Due date: 30 October 2025
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO
PERSONALITY)
1.1
The Supreme Court of Appeal in MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS
obo CMMS made it very clear that the trial court misunderstood how to properly make use of
previous awards in similar cases. The court explained that while it is essential to refer to
comparable cases when assessing general damages for non-patrimonial loss, they must
only serve as guidance and not be used as a binding rule. The court referred to De Jongh v
Du Pisanie, where it was stated that the primary principle remains the discretion of the court.
Comparable cases help create a framework of fairness and consistency but should not take
away the court’s power to decide what is just in the specific matter before it.1
In this case, the court criticised the High Court for relying too heavily on comparisons with
past awards without carefully weighing the unique facts and circumstances of the plaintiff’s
injuries. The court stressed that general damages should not be treated like items on a price
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS
(INJURY TO PERSONALITY)
1.1
The Supreme Court of Appeal in MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v
AAS obo CMMS made it very clear that the trial court misunderstood how to properly
make use of previous awards in similar cases. The court explained that while it is
essential to refer to comparable cases when assessing general damages for non-
patrimonial loss, they must only serve as guidance and not be used as a binding
rule. The court referred to De Jongh v Du Pisanie, where it was stated that the
primary principle remains the discretion of the court. Comparable cases help create
a framework of fairness and consistency but should not take away the court’s power
to decide what is just in the specific matter before it.1
In this case, the court criticised the High Court for relying too heavily on comparisons
with past awards without carefully weighing the unique facts and circumstances of
the plaintiff’s injuries. The court stressed that general damages should not be treated
like items on a price list where each injury has a fixed amount. Instead, courts should
consider various factors such as the age of the plaintiff, the severity of the injuries,
medical treatment received, emotional and physical suffering, and the long-term
impact on the plaintiff’s life.2
The court leaned on the well-known principle established in Protea Assurance Co
Ltd v Lamb, where it was emphasised that the comparison of cases should not
become a detailed audit of old judgments. Rather, the process should help judges
come to a fair amount that aligns with previous awards in similar circumstances,
ensuring that their decision is not completely out of step with what has been awarded
in other cases.3
It was also made clear that these comparisons need to take into account the
changing value of money over time. A previous award from many years ago cannot
be used at face value without adjusting for inflation. The court acknowledged that the
1
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025]
ZASCA 91, para 38.
2
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS, para 36.
3
Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A).