07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

Eduvos (Pty) Ltd (formerly Pearson Institute of Higher Education) is registered with
the Department of Higher Education and Training as a private higher education
institution under the Higher Education Act, 101, of 1997. Registration Certificate
number: 2001/HE07/008.

Date: Monday, 7 October 2024, 12:28 PM

Law of Delict Assessments

Assignment Paper

1. Assignment

Faculty: Commerce and Law

Module Code: LWDLA3-44

Module Name: Law of Delict

Content Writer: Dr Leo Mafuso

Internal Moderation: Community of Practice

Copy Editor: Ms Mishka Mahadev

Total Marks: 100

Submission Week: Week 5

This module is presented on NQF level 7.

5% will be deducted from the student’s assignment mark for each calendar day the assignment is submitted
late, up to a maximum of three calendar days. The penalty will be based on the official campus submission
date.

Assignments submitted later than three calendar days after the deadline or not submitted will get 0%. [1]

This is a group assignment. The lecturer has the discretion to put students into groups.

This assignment contributes 30% towards the final mark.

[1] Under no circumstances will assignments be accepted for marking after the assignments of other students have been marked and returned to

the students.

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 1/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

2. AI Checklist and Declaration

Before you submit an assignment, you should be able to confidently and honestly make all the below
statements. For group work, you can also review the list, together, to hold one another accountable.

I confirm that my submission reflects my personal learning, knowledge, skills, and understanding.

If AI tools were employed for generating any part of this assignment (even in the drafting/research phase),
I have referenced the use of AI in the text and/or declared the use of AI. I am willing to discuss the
process and its contribution to my learning.

I am aware that the lecturer may request a demonstration of my learning, such as explaining choices in
approach, research, and the content I am submitting.

I am aware that, if I did use AI in any phase of preparing this submitted work, it is recommended that I
save a copy of the relevant chat history (prompts and answers), as this will help me demonstrate my
writing/work process to my lecturer, if I am asked to do so.

I have read the assignment instructions on whether AI tools are prohibited for this assignment, and if they
are prohibited, I can confirm that I did not use AI tools.

I understand that failure to agree to these terms may be deemed unethical, potentially leading to
disciplinary action. I understand my responsibility for the integrity of my work, including seeking
clarification from academic staff and adhering to instructions.

It is essential to acknowledge your use of ChatGPT or other generative AI in your learning. If you use
ChatGPT or other generative AI to help you generate ideas or plan your process, you should still
acknowledge how you used the tool, even if you don’t include any AI-generated content in the assignment.

Please note: The following guiding questions that you will be asked in an AI declaration questionnaire below
this assignment brief.

AI Declaration
It is compulsory to complete this AI declaration for each of your assignment submissions.

I carefully read the assignment instructions, and the extent to which AI may be used for the assignment.

I used the following AI system(s)/tool(s):

I used it for the following:

If I quoted or paraphrased an AI output, I have referenced the relevant tool, version, and the date I used
the tool.

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 2/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

I still consider this work my own. (i.e., I have not outsourced the final product, or significant portions of it, to
AI tools/systems).

If required, I can defend my argument/perspective, explain my choices and approach, and can show that I
am knowledgeable about the details of my work.

For further guidance on the use of AI at Eduvos, please refer to the AI FAQ glossary. You will locate the
FAQs in the Artificial Intelligence tile on the myDocuments page of myLMS.

3. Instructions to Students

1. Please ensure that your answer file (where applicable) is named as follows before submission: Module
Code – Assessment Type – Campus Name – Student Number.
2. Remember to keep a copy of all submitted assignments.
3. All work must be typed.
4. Please note that you will be evaluated on your writing skills in all your assignments.
5. All work must be submitted through Turnitin. The full originality report will be automatically generated
and available for the lecturer to assess. Negative marking will be applied if you are found guilty of
plagiarism, poor writing skills, or if you have applied incorrect or insufficient referencing. (See the
"instructions to students" book activity before this activity where the application of negative marking is
explained.)
6. You are not allowed to offer your work for sale or to purchase the work of other students. This includes
the use of professional assignment writers and websites, such as Essay Box. You are also not allowed
to make use of artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, to create content and submit it as your own
work. If this should happen, Eduvos reserves the right not to accept future submissions from you.
7. One group member should be nominated to submit the assessment on behalf of the group. Multiple
submissions by various group members will result in an inflated similarity index on Turnitin.

4. Section A

Section A

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 3/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

Learning Objectives

Analyse and evaluate delictual concepts based on the Constitution, case law and common law.
Identify and apply principles and elements of a delict.
Conduct legal research and evaluate legal information and interpret case law on principles of the law of
delict.
Analyse a set of facts, identify issues and apply principles of the law of delict to solve practical problems
in a legally critical manner.
Communicate the law and apply it to different factual scenarios relating to the law of delict in writing.

Assignment Topic

In-Depth Analysis of South African Law: Practical Application of Delictual Principles and Constitutional Rights

Scope

Chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 10

Technical Aspects

1. Assignment format:

Typed
Line spacing: 1.5 (Clear spaces before and after paragraphs.)
Font: Arial, size 12

2. Please follow the procedures for citing and referencing as per the Harvard method of referencing.

3. The total length of the assignment should not be less that 3 pages and not more than 10 pages excluding
the cover page and bibliography.

4. The assignment must be submitted through Turnitin.

5. Students must be able to consult the prescribed textbook, case law and other additional sources.

Marking Criteria

Marks will be allocated as per the rubric and marking matrix.

Plagiarism is a very serious matter and if any part of your report is found to be plagiarised you will receive
a zero grade.

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 4/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

4.1. Question 1

Question 1 100 Marks

Study the scenario and complete the questions that follow:

Law of Delict

Mr Xavier, a journalist, writes a series of investigative articles exposing unethical environmental practices by
a major corporation, Eco-Industries, which has been accused of polluting a local river. The pollution has
caused significant harm to the local community, including health issues and damage to their farming
activities. In retaliation, Eco-Industries sues Mr Xavier for defamation, arguing that the articles were
inaccurate and damaged their reputation.

Simultaneously, Ms Yolanda, a farmer from the affected community, sues Eco-Industries for the damages
caused to her crops, claiming that the pollution from the river has destroyed her livelihood. Ms Yolanda
argues that Eco-Industries had a legal duty to prevent harm and that their negligent actions contributed to
her loss.

Source: Mafuso, L. 2024.

In this context, the following legal issues arise:

1. The balance between freedom of expression and the right to protect one’s reputation (constitutional and
delictual law).
2. The principle of wrongfulness in delict: Did Eco-Industries breach a legal duty by polluting the river?
3. Grounds of justification: Could Eco-Industries claim that the pollution was necessary due to business
operations or defend their actions on the basis of consent from relevant authorities?
4. Negligence and foreseeability: Was it foreseeable that Eco-Industries' actions would harm the
community, and could they have prevented the damage?
5. Causation: Did Eco-Industries’ pollution directly cause Ms Yolanda’s crop damage?

Questions:

1. Freedom of Expression vs. Defamation:

a) With reference to the set of facts, discuss the constitutional principles involved in balancing freedom of
expression with the right to dignity and reputation. Refer to relevant sections of the South African Constitution
(Section 16 - Freedom of Expression, and Section 10 - Right to Dignity). Reference relevant case law from

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 5/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

your prescribed textbook (Neethling & Potgieter, Law of Delict, 8th Edition) and Carmichele to highlight how
constitutional duties intersect with delictual claims.

(9 Marks)

b) Analyse the concept of subjective rights in delict and explain whether Eco-Industries' right to a good
reputation outweighs Mr Xavier’s freedom of expression. Reference relevant case law (e.g., Bogoshi v
National Media Ltd or Le Roux v Dey) and prescribed textbook cases.

(9 Marks)

Sub Total for Question 1: 18 Marks

2. Wrongfulness and Legal Duty:

a) Define the concept of wrongfulness in delict and critically assess whether Eco-Industries breached a legal
duty by polluting the river. Discuss the test for wrongfulness (boni mores), refer to relevant prescribed
material and cases such as. Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development,
Gauteng (CCT 185/13) [2014] ZACC 28; 2015 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2014 (12) BCLR 1397 (CC).

(9 Marks)

b) Apply the doctrine of subjective rights to Ms Yolanda’s claim against Eco-Industries. Was Eco-Industries’
conduct wrongful from the perspective of societal norms and Ms Yolanda’s subjective rights as a farmer
respectively?

(9 Marks)

Sub Total for Question 2: 18 Marks

3. Grounds of Justification:

a) Discuss the potential grounds of justification that Eco-Industries could raise to defend their actions. Could
they argue that the pollution was justified due to business operations or government approval?

(9 Marks)

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 6/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

b) Critically assess whether private defence or consent could reasonably apply to Eco-Industries’ case.
Would these defences hold under South African law? Substantiate your answer with case law from the
prescribed textbook (Neethling & Potgieter, Law of Delict, 8th Edition).

(9 Marks)

Sub Total for Question 3: 18 Marks

4. Negligence:

a) Define negligence under South African law, particularly focusing on foreseeability and preventability of
damage. Apply these principles to determine whether Eco-Industries could have foreseen the harm caused
to Ms Yolanda’s crops. Reference relevant case law from your prescribed textbook (Neethling & Potgieter,
Law of Delict, 8th Edition).

(9 Marks)

b) Evaluate whether Eco-Industries' actions could be deemed negligent based on the surrounding
circumstances. Would a reasonable person in their position have taken steps to prevent the damage?

(9 Marks)

Sub Total for Question 4: 18 Marks

5. Causation:

a) Discuss the principles of factual causation in South African delict law. Could Ms Yolanda successfully
prove that Eco-Industries’ pollution was the factual cause of her crop damage?

(5 Marks)

b) Examine the principle of legal causation in this case. Should Eco-Industries be held legally responsible for
Ms Yolanda’s damages, or could they argue that external factors (e.g., weather conditions) contributed to the
loss? Substantiate your answer with reference to case law.

(5 Marks)

Sub Total for Question 5: 10 Marks

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 7/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

6. Legal Conclusion and Recommendations:

a) Based on the facts of the case, provide a legal conclusion on whether Mr Xavier should be held liable for
defamation as claimed by Eco-Industries. Additionally, provide a legal conclusion on whether Eco-Industries
should be held liable for the damages claimed by Ms Yolanda. Use a balanced approach, considering both
constitutional and delictual principles. Substantiate your answer with reference to case law.

(4 Marks)

b) Briefly discuss potential legal remedies both Mr Xavier and Ms Yolanda can seek under South African law.

(4 Marks)

Sub Total for Question 6: 8 Marks

[Sub Total 90 Marks]

End of Question 1

5. Section B: Rubric

Marking Rubric:

Criteria Weighting Detailed Description

Identification of Constitutional principles (9

Marks) – Clear explanation of Sections 16 and 10 of
the Constitution.
Question 1: Freedom of
18 Marks Analysis of subjective rights and balancing of
Expression vs Defamation
interests (9 Marks) – Critical discussion using case
law to compare freedom of expression and reputation
protection. References from prescribed textbook.

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 8/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

Criteria Weighting Detailed Description

Definition and test for wrongfulness (9 Marks) –

Detailed explanation of wrongfulness and legal duty,
including the boni mores standard.
Application of subjective rights (9 Marks) – Clear
Question 2: Wrongfulness analysis of how societal norms impact the rights in
18 Marks
and Legal Duty question. Reference case law such as Country Cloud
Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure
Development, Gauteng (CCT 185/13) [2014] ZACC
28; 2015 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2014 (12) BCLR 1397 (CC)
and cases from prescribed textbook.

Discussion of potential justifications (9 Marks) –

Critical examination of necessity and consent, with
Question 3: Grounds of reference to case law.
18 Marks
Justification Assessment of private defence/consent (9 Marks)
– Clear argumentation on whether these defences
apply. Use relevant cases from prescribed textbook.

Definition of negligence (9 Marks) –

Comprehensive explanation of foreseeability and
preventability.
Question 4: Negligence 18 Marks
Application to the case (9 Marks) – Analysis of
Eco-Industries' negligence in light of the facts. Cite
cases from prescribed textbook.

Factual causation (5 Marks) – Clear explanation of

the but-for test.
Question 5: Causation 10 Marks Legal causation (5 Marks) – Critical discussion of
whether Eco-Industries can be held legally
responsible. References from textbook cases.

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 9/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

Criteria Weighting Detailed Description

Conclusion (4 Marks) –
A well-argued legal conclusion regarding Mr Xavier's
potential liability for defamation and Eco-Industries'
liability for damages to Ms Yolanda, based on
constitutional principles (e.g., freedom of expression)
and delictual principles (e.g., negligence).
Strong use of relevant case law to support
Question 6: Conclusion conclusions.
8 Marks
and Recommendations Recommendations (4 Marks) –
Practical legal strategies and remedies available to
both Mr Xavier and Ms Yolanda under South African
law.
Well-supported recommendations that reflect an
understanding of defamation, damages claims, and
environmental law, with reference to applicable case
law.

Marks awarded for the overall structure (10 Marks)

Clarity - is the assignment clear?
Legal language used - is the language used
appropriate?
Overall Presentation 10 Marks Number of pages - did the student adhere to the
required number of pages for the assignment?
Prescribed cases were used - the students used the
prescribed case law.
Proper referencing guidelines followed.

6. Section C: Plagiarism and Referencing

Eduvos places high importance on honesty in academic work submitted by students and adopts a zero-
tolerance policy on cheating and plagiarism. In academic writing, any source material, e.g. journal articles,
books, magazines, newspapers, reference material (dictionaries), or online resources (websites, electronic
journals, or online newspaper articles), must be properly acknowledged. Failure to acknowledge such
material is considered plagiarism; this is deemed an attempt to mislead and deceive the reader and is
unacceptable.

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 10/11
07/10/2024, 12:39 Assignment Paper | Eduvos

Eduvos adopts a zero-tolerance policy on plagiarism; therefore, any submitted assessment that has been
plagiarised will be subject to severe penalties. Students who are found guilty of plagiarism may be subject to
disciplinary procedures, and outcomes may include suspension from the institution or even expulsion.
Therefore, students are strongly encouraged to familiarise themselves with referencing techniques for
academic work. Students can access the Eduvos referencing guides on myLMS.

7. Section D: Negative Marking

Third-year Students

A minimum of 15 additional information sources must be consulted and correctly cited.

If no additional information sources have been used, a full 15% must be deducted.
Deduct 1% per missing resource of the required 15. For example:
If only five resources cited, deduct 10%.
If only three resources cited, deduct 12%.
Markers to apply the penalties for Category A for insufficient sources and incorrect referencing style.
To determine the actual overall similarity percentage and plagiarism, markers must interpret the Turnitin
Originality Report with reference to credible sources used and then apply the penalties as per the scale in
the Policy for Intellectual Property, Copyright and Plagiarism Infringement.
The similarity report alone is not an assessment of whether work has or has not been plagiarised. Careful
examination of both the submitted paper/assignment/project and the suspect sources must be done.

Category A

Minimum Reference Requirements Deduction from Final Mark

No additional information sources have been used or referenced. 15%

https://mylms.vossie.net/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=804865 11/11