,LPL4802 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30
October 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations.
QUESTION 1 (ESSAY) NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF
NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS AND DAMAGES FOR
PATRIMONIAL LOSS (4 pages, including rubric) PLEASE
NOTE: You must present your answer in the form of an essay.
Its marking rubric is attached with this examination paper. Study
the case Komape and others v Minister of Basic Education and
Others 2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA) a copy of it is attached here and
answer the questions below. N.B.: The question below must be
answered in the form of an essay. At the end of your essay,
attach the rubric that was supplied to you along with your exam
answer script. 1.1 Discuss what the plaintiff needs to prove to be
successful in a claim for shock (psychiatric injury) as a head of
damage for non-patrimonial loss. Refer to relevant authority in
your answer. (15) 1.2 Critically analyse the reasons (advanced
by the court) why Constitutional damages, claimed in addition to
common law damages, must at present necessarily fail. (10)
TOTAL MARKS FOR THIS QUESTION: [25] 3
The Nature and Assessment of Non-Patrimonial Loss and
Damages for Patrimonial Loss: An Analysis of Komape and
Others v Minister of Basic Education and Others
In South African law, the distinction between patrimonial and
non-patrimonial loss is crucial for the assessment of damages in
, tort claims. Patrimonial loss refers to financial losses, such as
loss of earnings or medical expenses, while non-patrimonial loss
encompasses non-economic damages like pain and suffering,
emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. This essay
examines the plaintiff's burden of proof for non-patrimonial loss,
particularly in cases of shock or psychiatric injury, through the
lens of the Komape case, and critically analyzes the court's
rationale for dismissing claims for constitutional damages
alongside common law damages.
1.1 Proving Psychiatric Injury as a Head of Damage for
Non-Patrimonial Loss
In the context of non-patrimonial loss, plaintiffs seeking
damages for psychiatric injuries must establish several key
elements to support their claims. Firstly, they must demonstrate
that a legally recognized psychiatric injury has occurred. In the
Komape case, the court highlighted the necessity for expert
testimony to substantiate claims of psychiatric injury,
particularly when the injury arises from shocking or distressing
events. This aligns with the principles established in Mogale v
Minister of Safety and Security 2008 (1) SA 59 (SCA), where
the court acknowledged that psychiatric injuries are often subtle
and may not be readily apparent.
The second requirement is that the plaintiff must prove a causal
link between the wrongful act of the defendant and the
psychiatric injury suffered. The plaintiff must show that the
psychiatric injury was a direct consequence of the defendant’s
negligent conduct or wrongful act. This is crucial, as
establishing this connection often involves navigating complex
