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
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Course
Law of Damages (LPL4802)
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)
In the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (SCA) in MEC for
Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91, the
majority (Makgoka JA/Goosen JA/Dawood AJA concurring) set out how the trial court ought to
have approached comparable cases when assessing general (non-patrimonial) damages. The
following essay outlines that approach, with reference to the authorities cited in the judgment.
The role of comparable cases as guidance
, 1. The SCA emphasised at paragraphs 48-50 of the judgment that while previous
awards in “comparable” cases are a useful guide, they must not overshadow the court’s
discretionary assessment in the individual matter. SAFLII+2Law Library+2
o The court singled out that the High Court had “slavishly” followed previous
awards without sufficient critical appraisal of the present facts. SAFLII+1
o In the judgment the SCA repeated the well-accepted principle from Protea
Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A) that “Comparable cases, when available, should
rather be used to afford some guidance, in a general way, … towards assisting the court in
arriving at an award which is not substantially out of general accord with previous awards in
broadly similar cases …”. SAFLII+1
o The SCA further held that the comparison must not “interfere with a court’s
discretion”. SAFLII
2. The majority stressed three criteria in how the court should treat comparable
cases:
(a) the facts of the previous cases need to be materially similar (or the differences clearly
identified and adjusted for) so that comparison is justified;
(b) the previous awards serve as a yardstick or benchmark, not as a formulaic or fixed table;
(c) the trial court must articulate factors and circumstances in its own case, and explain how it
arrived at its figure (i.e., not rely solely on listing previous awards).
o The SCA at para 49 emphasised that “to ascertain whether particular cases are
similar in material respects, the facts, regarding the degree of pain suffered … and the amenities
of life of which he or she was deprived, must be known before a comparison is justified.”
SAFLII+1
o It added that the trial court should, at the very least, state the factors and
circumstances it considers important in its damages assessment; in this case the High Court
failed to do so. Law Library+1
3. The SCA also flagged that very few cases are directly comparable in all respects,
so the courts must exercise caution in drawing parallels. The court made clear that the “pattern”
, of previous awards may be used to test an assessment but not replace the discretionary evaluation
itself. SAFLII
How the court held the High Court erred
1. The majority observed that the High Court had relied heavily on four past awards
it regarded as “broadly similar with C’s case” but had failed to meaningfully engage with how
those cases were factually comparable in terms of severity, pain, loss of amenities, life
expectancy, etc. SAFLII
2. The High Court simply stated: “Almost all the cases discussed … appeared to be
broadly similar with C’s case” and then proceeded to fix R2.2 million with little further
elaboration. The SCA criticised this as a mechanical exercise of comparison. SAFLII+1
3. The majority held that the High Court did not properly articulate the link between
the past awards and the particular facts of the present case; nor did it explain why the particular
quantum was fair in light of the injury suffered. That omission amounted to misdirection in the
exercise of its discretion. Law Library
Relevant authorities and their ratios
1. Protea Assurance v Lamb (1971 (1) SA 530 (A)) remains the seminal authority on
the use of comparable cases in assessing general damages. The ratio is that comparable cases
may guide but not fetter discretion. SAFLII+1
2. Other decisions emphasise the same principle. For example, in Minister of Safety
and Security v Seymour 2006 (6) SA 320 (SCA) the SCA warned: “The assessment of awards of
general damages with reference to awards made in previous cases is fraught with difficulty. The
facts of a particular case need to be looked at as a whole and few cases are directly comparable.”
Law Library
3. The flexible approach derived from Sandler v Wholesale Coal Suppliers Ltd 1941
AD 194 quoted in South African jurisprudence (for example in the case of Mashigo v Road
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
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Course
Law of Damages (LPL4802)
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)
In the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (SCA) in MEC for
Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91, the
majority (Makgoka JA/Goosen JA/Dawood AJA concurring) set out how the trial court ought to
have approached comparable cases when assessing general (non-patrimonial) damages. The
following essay outlines that approach, with reference to the authorities cited in the judgment.
The role of comparable cases as guidance
, 1. The SCA emphasised at paragraphs 48-50 of the judgment that while previous
awards in “comparable” cases are a useful guide, they must not overshadow the court’s
discretionary assessment in the individual matter. SAFLII+2Law Library+2
o The court singled out that the High Court had “slavishly” followed previous
awards without sufficient critical appraisal of the present facts. SAFLII+1
o In the judgment the SCA repeated the well-accepted principle from Protea
Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A) that “Comparable cases, when available, should
rather be used to afford some guidance, in a general way, … towards assisting the court in
arriving at an award which is not substantially out of general accord with previous awards in
broadly similar cases …”. SAFLII+1
o The SCA further held that the comparison must not “interfere with a court’s
discretion”. SAFLII
2. The majority stressed three criteria in how the court should treat comparable
cases:
(a) the facts of the previous cases need to be materially similar (or the differences clearly
identified and adjusted for) so that comparison is justified;
(b) the previous awards serve as a yardstick or benchmark, not as a formulaic or fixed table;
(c) the trial court must articulate factors and circumstances in its own case, and explain how it
arrived at its figure (i.e., not rely solely on listing previous awards).
o The SCA at para 49 emphasised that “to ascertain whether particular cases are
similar in material respects, the facts, regarding the degree of pain suffered … and the amenities
of life of which he or she was deprived, must be known before a comparison is justified.”
SAFLII+1
o It added that the trial court should, at the very least, state the factors and
circumstances it considers important in its damages assessment; in this case the High Court
failed to do so. Law Library+1
3. The SCA also flagged that very few cases are directly comparable in all respects,
so the courts must exercise caution in drawing parallels. The court made clear that the “pattern”
, of previous awards may be used to test an assessment but not replace the discretionary evaluation
itself. SAFLII
How the court held the High Court erred
1. The majority observed that the High Court had relied heavily on four past awards
it regarded as “broadly similar with C’s case” but had failed to meaningfully engage with how
those cases were factually comparable in terms of severity, pain, loss of amenities, life
expectancy, etc. SAFLII
2. The High Court simply stated: “Almost all the cases discussed … appeared to be
broadly similar with C’s case” and then proceeded to fix R2.2 million with little further
elaboration. The SCA criticised this as a mechanical exercise of comparison. SAFLII+1
3. The majority held that the High Court did not properly articulate the link between
the past awards and the particular facts of the present case; nor did it explain why the particular
quantum was fair in light of the injury suffered. That omission amounted to misdirection in the
exercise of its discretion. Law Library
Relevant authorities and their ratios
1. Protea Assurance v Lamb (1971 (1) SA 530 (A)) remains the seminal authority on
the use of comparable cases in assessing general damages. The ratio is that comparable cases
may guide but not fetter discretion. SAFLII+1
2. Other decisions emphasise the same principle. For example, in Minister of Safety
and Security v Seymour 2006 (6) SA 320 (SCA) the SCA warned: “The assessment of awards of
general damages with reference to awards made in previous cases is fraught with difficulty. The
facts of a particular case need to be looked at as a whole and few cases are directly comparable.”
Law Library
3. The flexible approach derived from Sandler v Wholesale Coal Suppliers Ltd 1941
AD 194 quoted in South African jurisprudence (for example in the case of Mashigo v Road
