LPL4802
EXAM
Law of Damages Portfolio October 2023
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning,
comparison and reference purpose,
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the
contents of this document as your own work,
Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise
or misuse this document.
LPL4802 Examination Portfolio Memo,
Semester 2 2023. Top Quality Excellent
Answers with Footnote and Bibliography.
Distinction Guaranteed!!!
Due Date: 27 October 2023
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided as is without any representations or
warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This
document is to be used for comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced,
resold or transmitted in any form or by any means.
QUESTION 1
NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (ESSAY)
(a)
Study Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund (437/2022) [2023] ZASCA (8 June 2023) case herein
attached as well as the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 as amended and answer the question
below:
, Write a critical appreciation/analysis of the court’s reasoning to disqualify the forklift as a motor
vehicle for the purposes of claiming damages from the Road Accident Fund. Refer to the relevant
case law and applicable legislation quoted and relied on, in this case. [15]
(b)
Study Motladile v Minister of Police (414/2022) [2023] ZASCA 94 (12 June 2023) case, herein
attached and answer the question below:
Evaluate the court’s dismissal of a ‘one size fits all’ approach to quantifying
damages/compensation for wrongful arrest and detention. Use case law to support your answer.
[10]
a.
In the case of Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund1, the court had to determine whether a
forklift could be considered a motor vehicle for the purposes of claiming damages from the
Road Accident Fund (RAF). The court ultimately disqualified the forklift as a motor vehicle,
thus denying the claimant the ability to seek compensation from the RAF. In order to
critically appreciate and analyze the court's reasoning, it is necessary to examine the
relevant case law and legislation utilized in reaching this decision.
The court's reasoning for disqualifying the forklift as a motor vehicle rests primarily on the
interpretation of the definition of a 'motor vehicle' as provided in the Road Accident Fund
Act 56 of 1996 as amended. The Act2 defines a motor vehicle as "any self-propelled vehicle
designed for use on a road and not exclusively designed for use as a tractor, implement or
industrial machine." The court found that the forklift, while self-propelled and designed for
use in an industrial setting, did not meet the requirement of being designed for use on a
road.
The court drew support for its reasoning from previous case law, particularly the decision
in the case of Adams v Road Accident Fund. In the Adams case, the court held that a crane
mounted on a truck chassis was not a motor vehicle for the purposes of claiming from the
RAF. The court relied on the fact that the crane was not designed for use on a road, as it
was primarily used in a construction setting. Applying this reasoning to the present case,
the court found that the forklift, like the crane in Adams, was not designed for use on a
road. Therefore it did not fall within the definition of a motor vehicle as provided in the Act.
Critics of the court's reasoning may argue that it is too narrow in its interpretation of the
definition of a motor vehicle. They may contend that the focus should be on whether the
vehicle is capable of being used on a road, rather than whether it is exclusively designed
for that purpose. In this regard, the forklift, although primarily used in an industrial setting,
is capable of being driven on public roads.
Furthermore, the court's reliance on the Adams case may be seen as problematic, as the Adams
decision itself has been subject to criticism for its overly restrictive interpretation of what
constitutes a motor vehicle.
In conclusion, the court's reasoning to disqualify the forklift as a motor vehicle for the
purposes of claiming damages from the Road Accident Fund was based on a restrictive
interpretation of the legislative definition and previous case law. While there may be
arguments both in favor and against this interpretation, the court's decision ultimately
rested on its determination that the forklift was not designed for use on a road.
b. In the case of Motladile v Minister of Police3 the court dismissed the notion of a 'one size
fits all' approach to quantifying damages or compensation for wrongful arrest and
detention. The court's dismissal of this approach can be supported by various case laws
that highlight the importance of considering individualized circumstances when
determining damages in such cases.
One relevant case that supports this dismissal is the South African Supreme Court of
Guaranteed Distinction!!!
EXAM
Law of Damages Portfolio October 2023
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning,
comparison and reference purpose,
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the
contents of this document as your own work,
Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise
or misuse this document.
LPL4802 Examination Portfolio Memo,
Semester 2 2023. Top Quality Excellent
Answers with Footnote and Bibliography.
Distinction Guaranteed!!!
Due Date: 27 October 2023
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided as is without any representations or
warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This
document is to be used for comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced,
resold or transmitted in any form or by any means.
QUESTION 1
NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (ESSAY)
(a)
Study Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund (437/2022) [2023] ZASCA (8 June 2023) case herein
attached as well as the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 as amended and answer the question
below:
, Write a critical appreciation/analysis of the court’s reasoning to disqualify the forklift as a motor
vehicle for the purposes of claiming damages from the Road Accident Fund. Refer to the relevant
case law and applicable legislation quoted and relied on, in this case. [15]
(b)
Study Motladile v Minister of Police (414/2022) [2023] ZASCA 94 (12 June 2023) case, herein
attached and answer the question below:
Evaluate the court’s dismissal of a ‘one size fits all’ approach to quantifying
damages/compensation for wrongful arrest and detention. Use case law to support your answer.
[10]
a.
In the case of Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund1, the court had to determine whether a
forklift could be considered a motor vehicle for the purposes of claiming damages from the
Road Accident Fund (RAF). The court ultimately disqualified the forklift as a motor vehicle,
thus denying the claimant the ability to seek compensation from the RAF. In order to
critically appreciate and analyze the court's reasoning, it is necessary to examine the
relevant case law and legislation utilized in reaching this decision.
The court's reasoning for disqualifying the forklift as a motor vehicle rests primarily on the
interpretation of the definition of a 'motor vehicle' as provided in the Road Accident Fund
Act 56 of 1996 as amended. The Act2 defines a motor vehicle as "any self-propelled vehicle
designed for use on a road and not exclusively designed for use as a tractor, implement or
industrial machine." The court found that the forklift, while self-propelled and designed for
use in an industrial setting, did not meet the requirement of being designed for use on a
road.
The court drew support for its reasoning from previous case law, particularly the decision
in the case of Adams v Road Accident Fund. In the Adams case, the court held that a crane
mounted on a truck chassis was not a motor vehicle for the purposes of claiming from the
RAF. The court relied on the fact that the crane was not designed for use on a road, as it
was primarily used in a construction setting. Applying this reasoning to the present case,
the court found that the forklift, like the crane in Adams, was not designed for use on a
road. Therefore it did not fall within the definition of a motor vehicle as provided in the Act.
Critics of the court's reasoning may argue that it is too narrow in its interpretation of the
definition of a motor vehicle. They may contend that the focus should be on whether the
vehicle is capable of being used on a road, rather than whether it is exclusively designed
for that purpose. In this regard, the forklift, although primarily used in an industrial setting,
is capable of being driven on public roads.
Furthermore, the court's reliance on the Adams case may be seen as problematic, as the Adams
decision itself has been subject to criticism for its overly restrictive interpretation of what
constitutes a motor vehicle.
In conclusion, the court's reasoning to disqualify the forklift as a motor vehicle for the
purposes of claiming damages from the Road Accident Fund was based on a restrictive
interpretation of the legislative definition and previous case law. While there may be
arguments both in favor and against this interpretation, the court's decision ultimately
rested on its determination that the forklift was not designed for use on a road.
b. In the case of Motladile v Minister of Police3 the court dismissed the notion of a 'one size
fits all' approach to quantifying damages or compensation for wrongful arrest and
detention. The court's dismissal of this approach can be supported by various case laws
that highlight the importance of considering individualized circumstances when
determining damages in such cases.
One relevant case that supports this dismissal is the South African Supreme Court of
Guaranteed Distinction!!!
