QUESTION 1

1.1 Piet and koos can act in a way that they like in dealing with their things but in
actual fact freedom is limited by the law and the rights of others. In this case we
are dealing with nuisance in the narrow sense where the Infringement of a
personality right is caused by the noise. These neighbours should respect each
other’s rights. Neighbours should act reasonably. This is an objective test. As
neigbours they must exercise their ownership rights in a reasonable manner and
the other neighbour must endure this exercise in a reasonable manner.

1.2 Mr nkosi can make an urgent application of interdict to court.

Interdict is as a summary court order applied for on an urgent basis. In making

this application for an interdict, mr nkosi may apply for an order forcing the van
vuurens to stop making noise . It is a speedy remedy where rights have been
infringed or are about to be infringed.

Mr nkosi must comply the following requirement to be successful

 a clear right
 an actual or reasonably apprehended violation of a right
 no similar protection by any other ordinary remedy\

1.3

The short-handed method means there will be no transfer of physical control that
will take place, since mr nkosi is already in control of the property, although not as
owner. the transferee may be a buyer in terms of an instalment sale and on
payment of the last instalment, mr nkosi acquires ownership by means of delivery
with the short hand. No transfer of control is necessary. It is therefore important
that there should be a clear indication of the intention requirement (Info Plus v
Scheelke 1998 (3) SA 184 (SCA)). There should be some clear proof that the
transferee holds on a new basis as owner (Marcus v Stamper and Zoutendijk 1910
AD 58).

Question 2

2.1 Karen is the lawful holder of fridges she bought until the last instalment.
Cheap Deal Wholesale reserved ownership of the fridges until the final
instalment has been paid.

Student no:49803506 pvl3701 2023-05-17

 2.2 Ronald holds limited real rights. Ronald asked Karen whether he could rent
one of the small rooms in the hotel for a period of six months. Karen agreed
and they sign a lease agreement.

2.3 Marianne’sis the bona fide possessor of the towel as she thinks that she is the
owner but she isn’t

2.4

2.5 Ronald has a personal right against Jane. This personal right was created in t
terms of a lease agreement. And when Ronald borrowed R5000 from Karen

Cheap Deal Wholesale has a personal right against Karen, it was created when
Karen bought fridges by instalments.

2.6

i. Actio ad exhibendum- action in terms of which the owner can claim the market
value of the thing from a person who destroyed or alienated the thing with a
mala fide intention. Karen must prove the following:
a) ownership of the thing
b) wrongful and intentional alienation or destruction of the thing
c) mala fide intention (with knowledge) of the person who alienated or destroyed
the thing
d) loss by the owner of the thing

Karen will be successful in this claim

ii. Aquilian action- Damages can be claimed with this action from any person
who through his/her unlawful conduct caused loss to an owner’s thing in a
culpable intentional or negligent manner. Karen must prove the following:

a) unlawful conduct by the defendant

b) culpability intent/negligence on the part of the defendant
c) proprietary right/interest of the plaintiff in the thing
d) patrimonial loss by the plaintiff
e) causal connection between the patrimonial loss and the conduct of the
defendant

Student no:49803506 pvl3701 2023-05-17

 karen will succeed in this claim.
iii. Actio ad exhibendum- action in terms of which the owner can claim the market
value of the thing from a person who destroyed or alienated the thing with a
mala fide intention. Karen must prove the following:
a. ownership of the thing
b. wrongful and intentional alienation or destruction of the thing
c. mala fide intention (with knowledge) of the person who alienated or
destroyed the thing
d. loss by the owner of the thing

Karen will be successful in this claim

2.7 A pledge can be defined as a limited real right over the pledger’s thing
delivered to the pledgee as security for repayment of the principal debt which
the pledger owes to the pledgee.

The following are required to constitute a pledge:

a) a principal debt,
b) a pledge agreement (security agreement) and
c) delivery

The accessory nature of pledge requires the existence of a principal debt. The
pledge agreement is an agreement creating a commitment that the pledger
undertakes to give the thing in pledge. The pledgee does not acquire a real
right to the thing until delivery has taken place. He merely acquires a personal
right by virtue of the pledge agreement. This will compel the pledger to deliver
the thing. Since the transfer of control is required for the vesting of a pledge, it
is usually accepted that only movable, corporeal things can be given in
pledge.

the pledgee may keep the thing if the pledger fails to pay . In both Mapenduka
v Ashington and Graf v Buechel, it was decided that a clause that a pledgee
may keep thing if the pledger fails to pay is invalid. Karen will not be able to
claim.

2.8 For a successful reliance on the rei vindicatio the ronald must prove, on a
balance of probabilities, that:

• he is the owner of the room which he is not

• the thing exists and is identifiable
• the defendant is in control

this not the wrong advice he was given bt his friend.

Student no:49803506 pvl3701 2023-05-17

 Question 3

3.1 bound co ownership- exists where there is an underlying legal relationship

between the co-owners which determines the basis of their co-ownership.
Lungusile and thuli were in romantic relationship when they bought the
property together

3.2 no. she cannot sell the house without the consent of lungusile.

3.3

Student no:49803506 pvl3701 2023-05-17