Michael Komape, a five-year-old child, drowned in 2014 in a pit toilet on his school grounds. The Komape family sought constitutional damages, a tort claim for damages for emotional trauma and shock, and other remedies, such as medical expenses, against the Department of Basic Education in South Africa. When the Court considered quantifying damages in Ms. PN`s case, the MEC argued that the Previous High Court Order (which ordered the MEC to be required to pay Ms. PN 100% of her agreed or proven damages) meant that the decision on the MEC`s method of payment was final and that a single lump sum payment was the only acceptable form of compensation. The CME also argued that the court was not in a position to amend the common law. The High Court ruled that MEC`s arguments were too much related to payment in the literal sense, concluding that it was not so much a question of how Ms. PN would be compensated, but whether MEC`s office was obliged to pay compensation. The plaintiff must invoke five elements and include a prayer for damages: it must be (a) illegal and (b) intentional (c) publication (d) of defamatory material (e) relating to the plaintiff. The court concluded that many constitutional rights had been violated, but that a claim for constitutional damages would constitute a sanction (which is not permitted by South African law) and lead to overcompensation of the Komape family. Under South African law, the purpose of a claim for damages is to compensate the damage suffered, not to enrich a party. The court held that the punitive nature of such an arbitral award would not in itself serve to enforce any of the rights infringed. The award of constitutional damages would therefore not have served the interests of society, nor would it have been a deterrent to the future infringement of rights.
Instead, the court ruled on the publication of a “structural ban.” In this context, the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education of Limpopo have been instructed to provide and install toilets in every rural school currently equipped with pit latrines. The promisor, whom we hereinafter refer to as a non-infringing party, is entitled to compensation (a monetary supplement) if this is necessary to make it complete, if the other party has breached the contract, unless the contract itself or other circumstances suspend or fulfill this right. Damages refer to money paid from side to side; It is a remedy. For historical and political reasons in the development of the English legal system, the courts could originally only grant monetary policy relief. If a petitioner wanted something other than money, a separate fairness system had to be used. The courtrooms and proceedings for each were separate. This real separation is long gone, but the distinction is still recognized; It can be said that a judge “sits in the law” or “sits in justice”, or a case can include both pecuniary claims and certain actions. We first seek damages. 23 For example, in General Accident Insurance Co SA Ltd v. Summers; Southern Versekeringsassosiasie Bpk v Carstens; General Accident Insurance Co SA AG v. Nhlumayo above 613C-E, the court considered the loss of income caused by bodily injury (loss of earning capacity) as damage that will continue in the future, long after the commission of a crime.
This theory led the court to postpone damages for loss of earning capacity and loss of maintenance only to the date of the trial and not to the date of the offence. Also in Drake Flemmer & Orsmond Inc v. Gajjar 2018 1 All SA 344 (SCA); 2018 3 SA 353 (SCA) Par 68, in which a legal action against a law firm for negligence in the sub-regulation of a claim for damages against the Road Traffic Accident Fund was ordered negligently by a second law firm (the relevant date for the determination of damages was considered to be the date of the fictitious proceedings against the Road Accident Fund). When processing a claim for damages, it is particularly important to note the following: Under South African law, claims for damages are financial claims invoked to compensate a plaintiff as a result of a loss-making event that occurred due to the defendant`s fault. In addition, when awarding damages for future losses, courts generally make arrangements for the “contingencies” that are presumed. These have been described as “dangers that normally threaten the lives and circumstances of ordinary people”33, which must also be taken into account in calculating the future damage that the plaintiff may suffer. Contingencies include any other relevant future events that (1) would otherwise have caused the damage or part of it; or (2) otherwise affect the amount of the plaintiff`s damages. For example, if liability has been established and the claimant, after weighing the probabilities, proves that there is a 40% chance that he will suffer damages in the amount of R1,000 in the future, the court will generally award damages, calculated on a reasonable basis as follows: 40% × R1,000 = R400.14 para.31 Although this assumption is not particularly precise or ideal, it has been described as a “necessary evil” arising once and for all.32 South African courts generally award interest in addition to any arbitral award they may make with respect to damages. The date and interest rate used to calculate the amount of interest due depend on the facts of the case.
A claim for damages may be invoked by a plaintiff: (1) in the event of a breach of contract; (2) where the defendant has committed a tort against the plaintiff; or (3) if there is a violation of any law that provides for damages or compensation in the event of such a violation. .