100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 16 pages.
Such a corporeal right can be a real right or a personal right that entitles the holder to some useof a thing for example, servitude or the right to the supply of electricity or water.Spoliation in relation to quasi possessionBon Quelle Munisipaliteit– the mandament van spolie was granted for the interruption of theflow of water under an alleged servitude. The respondents blocked the water. The court heldthat it was not necessary to prove the existence of the servitude. All that was necessary wasproof that the applicant exercised such a right.Tigon v Best Yet Investments– the appellant was a shareholder and its name appeared inthe register of shareholders. The applicant’s name was unilaterally removed from the registerand the applicant lodged an urgent application for its name to be immediately restored to the3Insolvent means that a court of law has declared you as such. Once you are insolvent, youlose control of your estate, which falls under control of a trustee. You only regain control overyour property when you become rehabilitated – you apply to court to be rehabilitated by showing that debts have been paid. The status of insolvency limits your capacity – you cannot control your estate. 6
register of members in respect of the shares it held. [If one is a shareholder in a company, yourname appears in a register. The presence of your name allows you to trade in those shares].The court held that the respondents had to prove quasi-possession of the right in the sense thatthey actually exercised that right and that the exercise of that right had been unlawfullyterminated. In granting the order, it was held that preventing registration of shares was donewithout following the proper procedure.SKETCHY: Xsinet v Telkom SA– The applicant was an internet service provider and hadacquired a telephone system and bandwidth system from Telkom SA. A dispute occurred overmonies allegedly owed by Xsinet to Telkom. The respondent disconnected the telephone andbandwidth system. The applicant sought a spoliation order. The trial court granted the order butthe SCA reversed the decision. The SCA held that the court a quo erred in its finding that theuse of telecommunications systems constituted an incident of possession of the premisesoccupied by Xsinet. The use of communications systems is not an incident of possession in thesame way as the use of water or electricity installations. The court held further that Xsinet wasnot in possession of the telecommunication system installed on its premises on the basis thatdisconnection was possible from Telkom’s premises. It further held that there was no evidencethat Xsinet was ever in possession of any of the mechanisms by which its equipment wasconnected to the internet. Finally, the court held that there was a contractual dispute betweenthe parties and that the order sought by Xsinet was essentially to compel the specificperformance of a contractual or personal right. The mandament van spolie has never been