LPL4802 October
November Portfolio
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
30 October 2025
NO PLAGIARISIM
[School]
[Course title]
,Exam (elaborations)
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 30
October 2025
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 30 October
2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO PERSONALITY)
Study the attached judgment, MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo
CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91 (20 June 2025), and answer the questions that follow. Your
response must be written in essay format. Each substantive point you make, when supported by
relevant legal authority, will carry a value of two (2) marks. 1.1 According to the majority
judgment, how should the court a quo have approached comparable cases when assessing
general damages? Discuss with reference to the relevant authority cited in the judgment. (15
marks) 1.2How should general damages be assessed in cases involving unconsciousness?
Support your answer with the relevant authority as cited in the prescribed textbook. (10 marks)
[25 marks]
This response addresses the questions based on the provided context, which includes the case
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA
91 (20 June 2025) and general principles of South African delict and damages law, specifically
from the LPL4802 module.
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO
PERSONALITY)
1.1 Court's Approach to Comparable Cases in Assessing General Damages
According to the majority judgment in MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS
obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91, the court a quo (the lower court) should have
approached comparable cases when assessing general damages with circumspection and as a
guide, not as an absolute determinant.
Circumspect Approach: The court a quo should have realised that no two cases are
exactly alike and that a mechanical comparison is inappropriate. The assessment of
general damages is a matter of judgment and fairness to both the claimant and the
defendant, based on the specific facts of the case.
, Purpose of Comparable Cases: Previous awards primarily serve to provide a general
indication of what the courts have considered to be a reasonable award in cases
involving similar injuries. They help to maintain a certain degree of uniformity and
consistency in awards, ensuring that the quantum does not depend on the "caprice of a
particular judge" (Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A)).
Adjustments and Peculiarities: The court a quo was required to take into account the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the injured person, including their age, sex, lifestyle,
nature of the injuries, and the degree of pain, suffering, and loss of amenities of life. It
must then adjust any comparable awards to reflect the current value of money and the
specific facts before it.
Relevant Authority Cited: The majority judgment specifically reiterated and applied the
long-established principle from the Appellate Division (now the Supreme Court of
Appeal) in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO, which confirmed that
previous awards are a useful general guide, but the ultimate decision rests with the
trial judge who must make an award that is "fair and just" in the circumstances. This
approach prevents the 'tariff' system and ensures flexibility.
Error of the Court a quo (Implied): The judgment likely suggests the court a quo erred
by potentially either treating the comparable cases as a rigid tariff or by selecting cases
that were not sufficiently comparable, leading to an award that was either excessive or
inadequate relative to the injuries sustained by the claimant.
1.2 Assessment of General Damages in Cases Involving Unconsciousness
General damages in cases involving unconsciousness are generally assessed by treating the
heads of damages—specifically pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life—differently,
with authority often drawn from Visser and Potgieter's Law of Damages.
Pain and Suffering: A person who is completely unconscious and will remain so cannot
experience pain, thus the element of consciousness or awareness is crucial for an award
under this head. Consequently, a claim for pain and suffering is usually negated or
severely limited for a claimant who is in a permanent vegetative state or profound
coma, as there is no subjective experience of the pain (Visser and Potgieter: Law of
Damages).
Loss of Amenities of Life: The situation is different for the loss of amenities of life. This
head of damage compensates for the deprivation of the ability to enjoy the ordinary
pleasures and activities of life (e.g., hobbies, work, social interaction). This loss is real
November Portfolio
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
30 October 2025
NO PLAGIARISIM
[School]
[Course title]
,Exam (elaborations)
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 30
October 2025
LPL4802 October November Portfolio (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 30 October
2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO PERSONALITY)
Study the attached judgment, MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo
CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91 (20 June 2025), and answer the questions that follow. Your
response must be written in essay format. Each substantive point you make, when supported by
relevant legal authority, will carry a value of two (2) marks. 1.1 According to the majority
judgment, how should the court a quo have approached comparable cases when assessing
general damages? Discuss with reference to the relevant authority cited in the judgment. (15
marks) 1.2How should general damages be assessed in cases involving unconsciousness?
Support your answer with the relevant authority as cited in the prescribed textbook. (10 marks)
[25 marks]
This response addresses the questions based on the provided context, which includes the case
MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA
91 (20 June 2025) and general principles of South African delict and damages law, specifically
from the LPL4802 module.
QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO
PERSONALITY)
1.1 Court's Approach to Comparable Cases in Assessing General Damages
According to the majority judgment in MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS
obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91, the court a quo (the lower court) should have
approached comparable cases when assessing general damages with circumspection and as a
guide, not as an absolute determinant.
Circumspect Approach: The court a quo should have realised that no two cases are
exactly alike and that a mechanical comparison is inappropriate. The assessment of
general damages is a matter of judgment and fairness to both the claimant and the
defendant, based on the specific facts of the case.
, Purpose of Comparable Cases: Previous awards primarily serve to provide a general
indication of what the courts have considered to be a reasonable award in cases
involving similar injuries. They help to maintain a certain degree of uniformity and
consistency in awards, ensuring that the quantum does not depend on the "caprice of a
particular judge" (Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A)).
Adjustments and Peculiarities: The court a quo was required to take into account the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the injured person, including their age, sex, lifestyle,
nature of the injuries, and the degree of pain, suffering, and loss of amenities of life. It
must then adjust any comparable awards to reflect the current value of money and the
specific facts before it.
Relevant Authority Cited: The majority judgment specifically reiterated and applied the
long-established principle from the Appellate Division (now the Supreme Court of
Appeal) in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO, which confirmed that
previous awards are a useful general guide, but the ultimate decision rests with the
trial judge who must make an award that is "fair and just" in the circumstances. This
approach prevents the 'tariff' system and ensures flexibility.
Error of the Court a quo (Implied): The judgment likely suggests the court a quo erred
by potentially either treating the comparable cases as a rigid tariff or by selecting cases
that were not sufficiently comparable, leading to an award that was either excessive or
inadequate relative to the injuries sustained by the claimant.
1.2 Assessment of General Damages in Cases Involving Unconsciousness
General damages in cases involving unconsciousness are generally assessed by treating the
heads of damages—specifically pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life—differently,
with authority often drawn from Visser and Potgieter's Law of Damages.
Pain and Suffering: A person who is completely unconscious and will remain so cannot
experience pain, thus the element of consciousness or awareness is crucial for an award
under this head. Consequently, a claim for pain and suffering is usually negated or
severely limited for a claimant who is in a permanent vegetative state or profound
coma, as there is no subjective experience of the pain (Visser and Potgieter: Law of
Damages).
Loss of Amenities of Life: The situation is different for the loss of amenities of life. This
head of damage compensates for the deprivation of the ability to enjoy the ordinary
pleasures and activities of life (e.g., hobbies, work, social interaction). This loss is real
