LPL4802
Assignment 1
Unique No: 689451
Due 28 August 2025
,LPL4802
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Unique No: 689451
DUE 28 August 2025
Survey Note: A Critical Analysis of Wrongfulness and Negligence in Mahlangu v
Ngubane
Response 1
Introduction
In South African delictual law, the principles of wrongfulness and negligence form the
analytical core for determining liability in cases involving patrimonial loss. Though often
conceptually intertwined, these elements serve distinct legal functions: wrongfulness
addresses the legally unacceptable infringement of a protected interest, whereas
negligence focuses on the objective standard of care in relation to reasonably
foreseeable harm.
This note critically engages with both elements within the context of the hypothetical
case Mahlangu v Ngubane, which centres on an omission involving fire
management. The discussion draws on South African common law principles,
constitutional norms, and case precedent to evaluate whether a legal duty existed,
whether harm was foreseeable, and whether Ngubane’s failure to act breached the
applicable standard of care.
, 1. Legal Framework: Wrongfulness as Unlawfulness of Omission
Wrongfulness in delictual law denotes conduct that infringes a legally protected
interest in a manner that society deems unacceptable. As Neethling and Potgieter
(2010) assert, this is not a subjective or moral judgment, but an objective inquiry into
the legal convictions of the community, shaped by constitutional values, statutory
duties, and policy considerations.
Omissions and the Legal Duty to Act
In the context of omissions, wrongfulness arises only where a legal duty to act
exists. Such duties may derive from:
• Statute (e.g., municipal fire safety by-laws)
• Common law (e.g., relationships of responsibility such as landowner–neighbour)
• Creation or control of a source of danger
As affirmed in Minister of Law and Order v Kadir 1995 (1) SA 303 (A), the court will
impose liability for an omission only if there was a legal duty to act in the interests
of safety or public order.
Application to Mahlangu v Ngubane
If Ngubane either owned or controlled the land where the fire originated—or had a
statutory or relational obligation to manage fire hazards—his omission may be
wrongful. Society expects those in control of hazardous conditions to exercise
reasonable precautions. Failure to mitigate or prevent the spread of fire violates this
expectation and, if supported by the presence of a legal duty, qualifies as legally
wrongful conduct.
Assignment 1
Unique No: 689451
Due 28 August 2025
,LPL4802
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Unique No: 689451
DUE 28 August 2025
Survey Note: A Critical Analysis of Wrongfulness and Negligence in Mahlangu v
Ngubane
Response 1
Introduction
In South African delictual law, the principles of wrongfulness and negligence form the
analytical core for determining liability in cases involving patrimonial loss. Though often
conceptually intertwined, these elements serve distinct legal functions: wrongfulness
addresses the legally unacceptable infringement of a protected interest, whereas
negligence focuses on the objective standard of care in relation to reasonably
foreseeable harm.
This note critically engages with both elements within the context of the hypothetical
case Mahlangu v Ngubane, which centres on an omission involving fire
management. The discussion draws on South African common law principles,
constitutional norms, and case precedent to evaluate whether a legal duty existed,
whether harm was foreseeable, and whether Ngubane’s failure to act breached the
applicable standard of care.
, 1. Legal Framework: Wrongfulness as Unlawfulness of Omission
Wrongfulness in delictual law denotes conduct that infringes a legally protected
interest in a manner that society deems unacceptable. As Neethling and Potgieter
(2010) assert, this is not a subjective or moral judgment, but an objective inquiry into
the legal convictions of the community, shaped by constitutional values, statutory
duties, and policy considerations.
Omissions and the Legal Duty to Act
In the context of omissions, wrongfulness arises only where a legal duty to act
exists. Such duties may derive from:
• Statute (e.g., municipal fire safety by-laws)
• Common law (e.g., relationships of responsibility such as landowner–neighbour)
• Creation or control of a source of danger
As affirmed in Minister of Law and Order v Kadir 1995 (1) SA 303 (A), the court will
impose liability for an omission only if there was a legal duty to act in the interests
of safety or public order.
Application to Mahlangu v Ngubane
If Ngubane either owned or controlled the land where the fire originated—or had a
statutory or relational obligation to manage fire hazards—his omission may be
wrongful. Society expects those in control of hazardous conditions to exercise
reasonable precautions. Failure to mitigate or prevent the spread of fire violates this
expectation and, if supported by the presence of a legal duty, qualifies as legally
wrongful conduct.
