Yonela Khanya

60521333

Question 1

A real right can be distinct as an authentic genuine relationship among a legitimate subject and a
thing which ponders direct command over the thing on the lawful subject, just as the connection
between the legitimate subject and any remaining lawful subjects who should regard this
relationship. An individual right begins from a commitment, which thus emerges from an agreement,
a delict or different causes, like shameful advancement or unapproved the executives of another's
undertakings (negotiorum gestio). A commitment is a theoretical legitimate tie between two explicit
lawful subjects in terms of which the one party, the lender, has an option to a specific presentation
against the other, the debt holder, and the last a relating obligation to deliver such execution.
Individual right stem from a commitment, while a genuine right is centered around a thing.
Proprietorship is the most far reaching genuine right that an individual can have.

Question 2

The distinction between ownership and limited real rights is in the fact that ownership is a realright
concluded on one’s own thing, whereas limited real rights are real rights to another person’s thing.in
addition ownership is the most complete real right a person can have to a thing, while limited real
rights are essentially limited in range. For example, in principle the owner of a piece of land can use
it as he/she wishes, whereas the powers of a usufructuary (limited real right holder in terms of a
personal servitude) are undoubtedly defined

Question 3

Personal servitude as it is a Right of habitation (habitatio) Ms Annie Hendricks,sold her

Property to her son, Mr Graham Hendricks a all-time right of inhabitation over the property was
recorded in backing of the Ms Annie Hendricks. Right of habitation is the right of habitation is a
servitude which is a partial real right. It convenes on the holder, the right to reside in the house of
another, without loss to the constituent of the property
Question 4

A real right In the case of a matrimonial in community of property, the husband and wife routinely
become free co-owners in the joint estate. By entering into a marriage in community of property, a
couple become the mutual owners of a joint estate. Each spouse is the joint owner of an undivided
half-share of the joint estate.Delivery of movables or handover of land is not required to bring into
the joint estate the property which each had at the time of entering into the marriage. From the
instant when a marriage in community of property takes place, the couple are joint owners of the
joint estate, which consists of all the assets which each had before the marriage, without delivery or
transfer thereof being necessary.

Question 5

The “subtraction from the dominium test” is established on the reasoning that a limited real right
weakens the owner’s ownership (dominium) over the property in that it either deliberates on its
holder certain entitlements gain from in widespread right of ownership; or averts the owner in one
way or another from using the right of ownership. A limited real right must amount to a
“diminution” of, or a “subtraction from” the owner’s dominium over the thing to which the imited
real right relates. The subtraction from the dominium(ownership) test formulated in Ex parte
Geldenhuys (1926 OPD155) as follows.

“One has to look not so much to the right, but to the correlative obligation. If that obligation
is a burden upon the land, a subtraction from the dominium [ownership], the corresponding
right is real and registrable; if it is not such an obligation, but merely an obligation binding on
some person or other, the corresponding right is a personal right, or right in personam, and
it cannot as a rule be registered.”

5.2

Limited real rights lies in the fact that ownership is a real right over one’s own thing, whereas limited
real rights are real rights to another person’s thing. Therefore, the owner of the property, the Ms
Margaret Hendricks, cannot use the full dominium over it, inasmuch as she cannot inhabit the
property, unless Ms Annie Hendricks as the holder of the right to habitation has allowed her to.

Without such consent, the first respondent’s occupation of the property was unlawful. She was
therefore, on the facts of this case, an illegitimate occupier within the meaning of section 1 of PIE. By
virtue of registration of the right habitation the appellant derived her legal authority as the ‘person
in charge’ in terms of s 1 of PIE and therefore she alone could legally grant permission to a person
(even the registered owner) to reside in the property

5.3

Personal rights can limit ownership. TRUE. Personal rights can also impose restrictions on ownership.
A personal right which limits the exercise of an owner’s ownership still has as its object performance
by the specific owner. This performance cannot be exacted from the owner’s successors in title.
Personal rights are assets that can be sold and transferred by means of cession when a creditor
transfers a personal right against a debtor to the cessionary so the cessionary steps into the shoes of
the creditor.