NAME: ZANELE NOMVULA

SURNAME: NHLAPO
STUDENT NUMBER: 66719844
PVL3701- PROPERTY LAW
OCT/NOV EXAMINATION
Question 1
1.1 Lora's opinion that Mr Nkosi should be allowed to do as he pleases since the
property belongs to him is not entirely correct. While it is true that Mr Nkosi is the
owner of the property, there are certain legal considerations and obligations that
come with owning trees on the property. The protected tree species is owned by the
Pienaar’s, and their justifiable interest in its preservation outweighs Mr. Nkosi's
unlimited right to remove it. In conclusion, even though Mr. Nkosi is the property's
owner, he still has legal duties and responsibilities to his neighbours and the
endangered tree species. The Pienaar’s are entitled to ask that overhanging
branches be trimmed, and Mr. Nkosi is not permitted to remove the protected Marula
tree without the required authorization.
1.2 The Pienaar’s have a legitimate legal position and options regarding the flowers
and overhanging branches of the Jacaranda trees. While Mr Nkosi owns the
property, the branches of his trees overhanging onto the Pienaar’s property can be
seen as a nuisance. he Pienaar’s are entitled to ask Mr. Nkosi to cut or remove the
overhanging branches since they are creating a nuisance and making it difficult for
them to utilize and enjoy their own land. They can speak with Mr. Nkosi about their
problems and ask for a solution. The Pienaar’s may choose to pursue legal action,
such as obtaining a court order to require the cutting or removal of the overhanging
branches, if Mr. Nkosi declines to address the matter. It is imperative that the
Pienaar’s handle the situation with dignity and goodwill. In summary, the Pienaars
have the right to request the trimming or removal of the overhanging branches, but it
is advisable for them to approach the situation with understanding and seek a
mutually beneficial resolution.
1.3 If the Pienaars feel aggrieved about the provision regarding the removal of the
Marula tree and believe it may contravene their right to property as protected by
section 25(1) of the Constitution, a court could potentially approach the
constitutionality of the provision through a process called constitutional review. The
court will evaluate the legitimacy of the protection of the Marula tree under the
National Forest Act 84 of 1998. In the end, the Pienaars' right to their property and
Mr. Nkosi's desire to safeguard the endangered tree species would be among the
conflicting rights and interests that the court would consider. The particular facts and
circumstances of the case, as well as the judiciary's interpretation and application of
constitutional principles, would all influence the court's ruling.
1.4 For Johnny to become the owner of the property previously owned by the
Pienaars, several requirements need to be fulfilled: Agreement: In order to sell the
property, the Pienaars and Johnny need to sign a legal agreement. The terms and
circumstances of the transaction, including the purchase price, the terms of payment,
and any other pertinent information, should be outlined in this agreement.
Offer and Acceptance: The Pienaars must present a clear offer to sell the property,
which Johnny accepts, either verbally or in writing, to avoid future disputes.
Purchase Price: Johnny is obligated to pay the agreed-upon amount to purchase the
property. There are several ways to accomplish this, including using cash, bank
transfers, or financial Sum institution borrowing.
Transfer of Ownership: The Pienaar’s and Johnny need a conveyancer or property
attorney to handle the legally registered transfer of ownership, including drafting
documentation and ensuring the transfer is registered at the relevant Deeds Office.
Compliance with Legal Requirements: Both Pienaars and Johnny must adhere to
legal requirements, including obtaining clearance certificates for rates, taxes, and
outstanding debts, as mandated by local municipalities or homeowner’s association.
Johnny will take over as the new owner of the property once the transfer procedure
is finished and all these conditions are satisfied. It is imperative that the concerned
parties seek advice from legal experts to guarantee that all legal requirements and
protocols are appropriately fulfilled.

Question 2
2.1 Katlego has a real right in the form of a mortgage over the flat in favour of SA
Bank. The R50,000 that is owed to the bank is the subject of this right. This right is
registrable in the Deeds Registry as it involves a mortgage over immovable property.
In the form of a lease with Katlego, Mark possesses a personal right. Using and
occupying the apartment for the whole year of the lease is the purpose of this
entitlement. Since this right is a private agreement between the parties, it cannot be
recorded in the Deeds Registry.
As per the conditions of the lease, Katlego has a personal right against Mark.
Katlego's interests as the landlord are the goals of this right. Since this right is a
private agreement between the parties, it cannot be recorded in the Deeds Registry.
[PVL3701 STUDY GUIDE PAGE 214]
2.2
2.2.1 The terms in the lease agreement that allow Katlego to change the locks of the
flat and enter the premises to remove Mark's belongings in the event of arrears are
likely to be invalid and unenforceable. Allowing Katlego to change locks in a flat if
Mark falls into arrears is considered unfair and infringes on his property rights, as
landlords typically follow legal processes to evict tenants. Katlego's right to enter
Mark's flat for arrears is likely invalid, violating his privacy and peaceful possession.
Landlords must obtain consent from tenants, except in legal circumstances.
The terms of the contract are likely to be unfair and violate tenant rights. If Katlego
enforces these terms, tenants can challenge them with legal remedies like interdicts
or damages.
[PVL3701 STUDY GUIDE PAGE 253]
2.2.2 The remedy available to Mark, should Katlego enforce the terms allowing her
to change the locks and enter the flat to remove his belongings in case of arrears, is
an application for an interdict. An interdict is a court order that prohibits a person
from doing something or compels them to do something. In this case, Mark could
apply for an interdict to prevent Katlego from changing the locks or entering the flat
without proper legal process. Mark's friends correctly indicated that the terms in the
lease agreement granting Katlego these rights are invalid. These terms infringe on
Mark's rights as a tenant, including his right to peaceful enjoyment of the property
and privacy. If Katlego were to enforce these terms, Mark would have a strong case
for obtaining an interdict.
2.3 Katlego has a few options to secure the arrear rental amount from Mark:
Katlego can change the locks of the flat if Mark falls into arrears, preventing him from
accessing the property until the arrear rental amount is paid.
Katlego can enter Mark's flat to remove his belongings if he falls into arrears, either
by holding them until payment is made or selling them to recover the owed amount.
Katlego may take legal action against Mark if the arrear rental amount is not paid
after changing locks and removing belongings.
To make sure she follows the required legal procedures and does not infringe upon
any tenant rights in the process of obtaining the arrear rental amount, Katlego should
speak with a lawyer or get guidance from a property management business.
2.4 The real relationship that Tshephang has with Katlego's townhouse in Midrand is
that of a personal servitude of right of habitation. This means that Tshephang has
the right to reside in the townhouse as his place of abode.
2.5 Tshephang's legal situation and the likelihood of being kicked out of Katlego's
townhouse would be determined by the specifics of their agreement on personal
servitude and right of habitation. Tshephang should carefully read the agreement's
precise wording to be aware of his rights and responsibilities.
Tshephang may invite guests like Dikeledi to stay in the townhouse if the agreement
doesn't specify any restrictions, but if explicitly prohibited, Tshephang may breach
the agreement.
Katlego may be able to enforce the provisions of the agreement by legal action,
which could result in Tshephang's eviction, if there is a breach of the agreement. On
the other hand, eviction is a legal procedure that needs to follow relevant rules and
regulations. To understand his particular rights and obligations and to decide on the
best course of action, Tshephang should speak with a property law specialist.
Tshephang should consult legal advice specific to the jurisdiction where the
townhouse is located regarding the varying laws regarding personal servitude of right
of habitation.
2.6 A security mortgage allows Katlego's flat to serve as collateral for a R50,000 loan
from SA Bank, allowing the bank to sell the property if Katlego defaults.
The mortgage is registered over the flat, granting SA Bank legal claim and priority in
case of default.
In order to verify the precise terms and circumstances of the mortgage, as well as
any additional information regarding the type of mortgage and the rights and
obligations of both parties, Katlego should check her loan agreement and mortgage
paperwork. She should speak with a legal expert or get in touch with SA Bank if she
has any questions.

Question 3
Based on the information provided, the owner of the kudus is Sandra. Although the
kudus escaped from her camp and were found on John's farm, this does not
automatically transfer ownership to John. Sandra can reclaim her property through
rei vindicatio, proving her rightful ownership of the kudus by proving she captured
and marked it with her initials.
John's claim of appropriation (0ccupatio) is not likely to be successful in this case.
Appropriation usually applies to wild animals that have not been previously captured
or owned by anyone. John's appropriation claim is unlikely to be successful as the
kudus, already owned by Sandra, escaped due to the game ranger's negligence,
making it untraceable.
All things considered, Sandra stands strong chance of winning the rei vindicatio and
getting her kudus back. The animals' markings can be used by her to prove her
ownership, and John's allegation of appropriation is unlikely to Succeed in court.
[PVL3701 STUDY GUIDE 119]

Question 4
4.1 Usucapio, or acquisitive prescription, is a legal principle allowing a person to
acquire ownership of someone else's property through continuous possession for a
specified period.
People occupying Nomvula's farm peacefully may claim ownership through
usucapio, typically involving a certa number off years without asserting rights.
The group can argue legal ownership of the farm if they meet usucapio
requirements, arguing that prolonged possession can transfer ownership even if the
original owner isn't actively using the property.
Nomvula should consult a lawyer to understand the laws and requirements for
usucapio in her jurisdiction, as establishing usucapio may limit her eviction rights.
[PVL3701 STUDY GUIDE PAGE 89]
4.2 To advise Nomvula on how to go about evicting the group of people, we can
refer to the relevant statutory law and case law in South Africa.
Statutory Law: The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of
Land Act (PIE Act) 19 of 1998 provides the legal framework for eviction in South
Africa. [PVL3701 STUDY GUIDE PAGE 121]
Case Law: South African courts have also provided guidance on eviction matters
through various judgments. One notable case is the Constitutional Court case of
Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg v
City of Johannesburg and Others (2018).
[CASE LAW MENTIONED]

Question 5
5.1 In this scenario, Tom's legal position would depend on the nature of the servitude
agreement between Tom and Tanya, as well as the legal effects of the sale of Merry
Cricket to Karabo.
Servitude Agreement: Tom might be able to utilize the road on Merry Cricket legally
if he and Tanya had a legitimate and enforceable servitude agreement for the right of
way over Merry Cricket. It is crucial to remember, though, that in order for the
servitude agreement to be enforceable, it must adhere to all legal formalities and be
in writing.
Notice to Karabo: It is claimed that when Karabo bought Merry Cricket, he was
aware of the terms of Tom and Tanya's service. Karabo might be required by law to
respect the servitude and let Tom use the road if he truly knew about it.
Transfer of Ownership: Normally, Tom and Tanya's servitude agreement would
continue with the land when Merry Cricket was sold to Karabo. This implies that even
in the event that the servitude was not yet registered, Karabo, as the new owner of
Merry Cricket, would still be bound by the terms of the agreement.
Enforcing the Servitude: This could take the form of an interdict or an application for
particular performance. To decide how to proceed with the lawsuit, the court would
take into account Karabo's knowledge, the terms of the servitude agreement, and
any other pertinent circumstances.
5.2 If the servitude has been properly registered, Tom's wife, Simone, should be
entitled to use the road over Merry Cricket.
Registered Servitude: The registered servitude is a legally recognized right binding
on Merry Cricket, providing public notice to subsequent owners, including Simone,
allowing them to have right of way over the property.
Succession of Rights: Tom's servitude rights pass to his heirs, including his wife
Simone, unless specified in the agreement or will, causing an encumbrance on
property.
Surviving Spouse's Rights: The surviving spouse has certain legal rights to inherit
from the estate of the deceased spouse in several jurisdictions, including South
Africa. These rights frequently include the right to inherit property as well as rights
attached to it, like in this instance, the right to servitude. Consequently, Simone
would probably inherit Tom's rights in the servitude and have the right to use the
road over Merry Cricket as she is his surviving spouse.
Compliance with Servitude Terms: Simone's use of Merry Cricket road is subject to
servitude agreement terms and conditions, including maintenance responsibilities
and usage limitations.