Such a corporeal right can be a real right or a personal right that entitles

Such a corporeal right can be a real right or a

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 use of a thing for example, servitude or the right to the supply of electricity or water. Spoliation in relation to quasi possession Bon Quelle Munisipaliteit – the mandament van spolie was granted for the interruption of the flow of water under an alleged servitude. The respondents blocked the water. The court held that it was not necessary to prove the existence of the servitude. All that was necessary was proof that the applicant exercised such a right. Tigon v Best Yet Investments – the appellant was a shareholder and its name appeared in the register of shareholders. The applicant’s name was unilaterally removed from the register and the applicant lodged an urgent application for its name to be immediately restored to the 3 Insolvent means that a court of law has declared you as such. Once you are insolvent, you lose control of your estate, which falls under control of a trustee. You only regain control over your 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
Image of page 6
register of members in respect of the shares it held. [If one is a shareholder in a company, your name 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 that they actually exercised that right and that the exercise of that right had been unlawfully terminated. In granting the order, it was held that preventing registration of shares was done without following the proper procedure. SKETCHY: Xsinet v Telkom SA – The applicant was an internet service provider and had acquired a telephone system and bandwidth system from Telkom SA. A dispute occurred over monies allegedly owed by Xsinet to Telkom. The respondent disconnected the telephone and bandwidth system. The applicant sought a spoliation order. The trial court granted the order but the SCA reversed the decision. The SCA held that the court a quo erred in its finding that the use of telecommunications systems constituted an incident of possession of the premises occupied by Xsinet. The use of communications systems is not an incident of possession in the same way as the use of water or electricity installations. The court held further that Xsinet was not in possession of the telecommunication system installed on its premises on the basis that disconnection was possible from Telkom’s premises. It further held that there was no evidence that Xsinet was ever in possession of any of the mechanisms by which its equipment was connected to the internet. Finally, the court held that there was a contractual dispute between the parties and that the order sought by Xsinet was essentially to compel the specific performance of a contractual or personal right. The mandament van spolie has never been
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 16 pages?

  • Summer '17
  • J parker
  • Possession, physical control

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture