LPL4802
ASSIGNMENT 2
DUE DATE: 28 AUGUST 2025
,LPL4802 ASSIGNMENT 1 2025
SEMESTER 2 2025
DUE DATE: 28 AUGUST 2025
QUESTION 1: ESSAY
Provide a clear description of how a South African court would analyse the
claims and defences in Mahlangu v Ngubane through 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.
The case of Mahlangu v Ngubane presents a complex yet instructive scenario involving
patrimonial loss due to a fire that spread from one farm to another. Mr. Mahlangu claims
delictual damages, alleging that Ms. Ngubane’s omissions were wrongful and negligent,
while Ms. Ngubane denies liability, asserting she acted reasonably. In resolving this
dispute, a South African court would apply the principles of delictual liability, particularly
focusing on wrongfulness and negligence two distinct yet interrelated concepts. This
essay provides a structured analysis of these concepts, how they are applied
independently, and considers whether liability is likely to be imposed, referencing
applicable case law and statutory authority.
1. Distinction Between Wrongfulness and Negligence
, In South African delict law, wrongfulness and negligence serve distinct purposes in
establishing liability.
Wrongfulness concerns the legal norm or duty whether the defendant’s conduct
unjustifiably infringed upon a legally protected interest. It focuses on the objectively
unlawful nature of the conduct.
Negligence, by contrast, involves the mental state or fault whether a reasonable person
in the defendant’s position would have foreseen the harm and acted to prevent it.
As Visser and Potgieter explain, “[w]rongfulness is determined through an investigation
into disturbance of an interest against the background of the relevant legal norm which
prohibits any unreasonable impairment” (Visser & Potgieter, 2012: 33–34). Negligence
only becomes relevant once wrongfulness has been established.
2. Application of Wrongfulness in Mahlangu v Ngubane
The court must first assess wrongfulness, particularly whether Ms. Ngubane owed Mr.
Mahlangu a legal duty of care in her fire management and whether her omission to act
more stringently was unlawful.
South African courts assess wrongfulness using public and legal policy considerations,
as illustrated in Loureiro v iMvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd 2014 (3) SA 394 (CC),
where the Constitutional Court held that a security firm’s omission in failing to ensure
basic safeguards was wrongful because a legal duty to prevent harm was established
based on public policy and constitutional rights (para 53–56).
Also, in Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA), the
court emphasised that public policy requires people to be held liable where they failed to
prevent foreseeable harm, particularly where the public relies on them for protection
(para 20–22).
ASSIGNMENT 2
DUE DATE: 28 AUGUST 2025
,LPL4802 ASSIGNMENT 1 2025
SEMESTER 2 2025
DUE DATE: 28 AUGUST 2025
QUESTION 1: ESSAY
Provide a clear description of how a South African court would analyse the
claims and defences in Mahlangu v Ngubane through 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.
The case of Mahlangu v Ngubane presents a complex yet instructive scenario involving
patrimonial loss due to a fire that spread from one farm to another. Mr. Mahlangu claims
delictual damages, alleging that Ms. Ngubane’s omissions were wrongful and negligent,
while Ms. Ngubane denies liability, asserting she acted reasonably. In resolving this
dispute, a South African court would apply the principles of delictual liability, particularly
focusing on wrongfulness and negligence two distinct yet interrelated concepts. This
essay provides a structured analysis of these concepts, how they are applied
independently, and considers whether liability is likely to be imposed, referencing
applicable case law and statutory authority.
1. Distinction Between Wrongfulness and Negligence
, In South African delict law, wrongfulness and negligence serve distinct purposes in
establishing liability.
Wrongfulness concerns the legal norm or duty whether the defendant’s conduct
unjustifiably infringed upon a legally protected interest. It focuses on the objectively
unlawful nature of the conduct.
Negligence, by contrast, involves the mental state or fault whether a reasonable person
in the defendant’s position would have foreseen the harm and acted to prevent it.
As Visser and Potgieter explain, “[w]rongfulness is determined through an investigation
into disturbance of an interest against the background of the relevant legal norm which
prohibits any unreasonable impairment” (Visser & Potgieter, 2012: 33–34). Negligence
only becomes relevant once wrongfulness has been established.
2. Application of Wrongfulness in Mahlangu v Ngubane
The court must first assess wrongfulness, particularly whether Ms. Ngubane owed Mr.
Mahlangu a legal duty of care in her fire management and whether her omission to act
more stringently was unlawful.
South African courts assess wrongfulness using public and legal policy considerations,
as illustrated in Loureiro v iMvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd 2014 (3) SA 394 (CC),
where the Constitutional Court held that a security firm’s omission in failing to ensure
basic safeguards was wrongful because a legal duty to prevent harm was established
based on public policy and constitutional rights (para 53–56).
Also, in Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA), the
court emphasised that public policy requires people to be held liable where they failed to
prevent foreseeable harm, particularly where the public relies on them for protection
(para 20–22).
