The Conundrum of Two Fellows in The Same Ship: A Comparative Legal Analysis of The Duplicity of Damages in South Africa

Abstract

Abstract South African law recognizes the common law right of the plaintiff to institute a claim for damages arising from loss caused by the delictual conduct of the defendant. In addition to the claim for common law damages for pain and suffering, insult, shock, past and future medical expenses, and loss of enjoyment of the amenities of life, depending on the nature of the delict, the plaintiff also has the right to claim constitutional damages for the infringement of constitutional rights. On that score, the South African Constitution, 1996 empowers the courts to ‘grant appropriate relief’ and to make ‘just and equitable’ orders in the context of common law and constitutional damages. This has resulted in the duplicity of damages in our law without clear guidance on how these two delictual “fellows” should interact in practical scenarios. Further, the courts have dragged their feet when it comes to the application of constitutional damages largely due to their orthodox approach which militates against the development of constitutional damages in South Africa. This article proposes avenues which enable the courts to take a coordinated approach in the application of these two remedies. It argues that in determining quantum for damages, the court should take a functional and pragmatic approach which is based on the ethos of fairness and equity over and above common law tenets.