PVL3701 SU 6-7
STUDY UNIT 6
Question 2 pg 162
This question deals with the necessity of having to stop or prohibit a specific action. In
this question you are asked which remedy is applicable to the set of facts and to discuss
the remedy with reference to its requirements. The question deals with the interdict.
In principle an interdict is a summary court order applied for on an urgent basis to force
a person to do something (mandatory interdict) or to refrain from doing something (a
prohibitory interdict). (1) It is a speedy remedy used when rights have been infringed or
are about to be infringed. (1) In this question the prohibitory interdict is applicable
because X is forced to stop or refrain from doing something.
The requirements for an interdict were set out in Setlogelo v Setlogelo. (1)
The requirements are :
a clear right (1) (please take note that the requirement is a clear right – not a real
right or ownership – Setlogelo illustrates the point);
actual or reasonably apprehended violation of a right; (1) and
the absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedy. (1)
(Study unit 6 pg 161)
1
,Question 2 pg 165
PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT THE QUESTION INCORRECTLY
ASKS WHETHER Z WOULD SUCCEED. IT SHOULD READ
“WILL S SUCCEED”!!
This question requires an indication of the applicable remedy, the requirements for a
successful reliance on the remedy and whether S will succeed.
The leading case here is Clifford v Farinha (1988 (4) SA 315 (W)).
To succeed with this action the applicant must prove:
ownership (1) or retention of a lawful interest (½) from the date of the theft to the
date of institution of the action; (½)
theft (1) or removal of the thing with deceitful intent; (1)
if the action is not instituted against the thief or deceitful remover, that the
defendant is the heir of the former. (1)
With regards to the question whether S will succeed you must refer to the case of
Clifford v Farinha. (1) The court in similar circumstances to the question extended the
operation of this action to a person with a lawful interest in the thing (S) and against the
person (Z) who removed the thing – in this case the car with a deceitful intention. (1)
Therefore, S should succeed with the action against Z. (1)
(Study unit 6 pg 164)
2
,STUDY UNIT 7
Question 4 pg 180
Study unit 7 deals with co-ownership.
In this question you are asked to discuss the remedies available to X with reference to
case law. The facts of the question indicate that we are dealing with co-ownership and
the applicable remedy is the interdict.
The facts of the question are similar to the facts in Pretorius v Nefdt and Glas. (1) In this
case Pretorius, (X) applied for an interdict, firstly to force Glas (Y) to revoke his
permission to Nefdt (Z) and secondly to discontinue his activities regarding the transport
of lime. (½)
The court decided that the permission given by Glas (Y) to Nefdt (Z) was a clear
infringement of Pretorius’s (X) rights (1) and that the permission placed an intolerable
burden on Pretorius (X). (1) The interdict against Glas (Y) was successful. (1) X will
probably be successful with an interdict to force Y to revoke his permission to Z. (1)
Should X revoke his permission to Z. Z can no longer use the road over the farm.
Secondly, Pretorius (X) wanted to prevent Glas (Y) from transporting Nefdt’s (Z) lime
over the farm. The court stated that there is no authority on which on can rely to decide
that a co-owner’s use of the road is limited to the purpose of the farm over which the
road traverses. (1) Therefore, Pretorius (X) is not successful with this application for a
interdict. (1) X’s application for an interdict will probably not be successful either. (1)
3
, PVL3701 SU 6-7
STUDIE-EENHEID 6
Vraag 2 bl 162
Hierdie vraag handel oor die noodsaaklikheid om ‘n sekere aksie te stop of te verbied.
In hierdie vraag word van u verwag om aan te dui watter remedie van toepassing is op
die feitestel en om die remedie te bespreek met verwysing na die vereistes daarvan.
Hierdie vraag handel oor die interdik.
In beginsel is ‘n interdik ‘n summiere hofbevel waarvoor daar op ‘n dringende basis
aansoek gedoen word om ‘n persoon te dwing om iets te doen (‘n verpligtende interdik)
of om iets nie te doen nie (‘n verbiedende interdik). (1) Dit is ‘n spoedeisende remedie in
gevalle waar regte geskend word of op die punt staan om geskend te word. (1) In
hierdie vraag is die verbiedende interdik van toepassing omdat X gedwing word om op
te hou met ‘n sekere aktiwiteit.
Die vereistes vir ‘n interdik is in Setlogelo v Setlogelo (1) uiteengesit.
Die vereistes is :
‘n duidelike reg (1) (neem asseblief kennis dat hierdie vereiste ‘n duidelike reg is
– nie ‘n saaklike reg of eiendomsreg nie - Setlogelo illustreer hierdie punt);
daadwerklike of redelikerwys verwagte skending van ‘n reg; (1) en
en die afwesigheid van soortgelyke beskerming deur enige ander gewone
remedie. (1)
(Studie-eenheid 6 bl 161-162)
4
STUDY UNIT 6
Question 2 pg 162
This question deals with the necessity of having to stop or prohibit a specific action. In
this question you are asked which remedy is applicable to the set of facts and to discuss
the remedy with reference to its requirements. The question deals with the interdict.
In principle an interdict is a summary court order applied for on an urgent basis to force
a person to do something (mandatory interdict) or to refrain from doing something (a
prohibitory interdict). (1) It is a speedy remedy used when rights have been infringed or
are about to be infringed. (1) In this question the prohibitory interdict is applicable
because X is forced to stop or refrain from doing something.
The requirements for an interdict were set out in Setlogelo v Setlogelo. (1)
The requirements are :
a clear right (1) (please take note that the requirement is a clear right – not a real
right or ownership – Setlogelo illustrates the point);
actual or reasonably apprehended violation of a right; (1) and
the absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedy. (1)
(Study unit 6 pg 161)
1
,Question 2 pg 165
PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT THE QUESTION INCORRECTLY
ASKS WHETHER Z WOULD SUCCEED. IT SHOULD READ
“WILL S SUCCEED”!!
This question requires an indication of the applicable remedy, the requirements for a
successful reliance on the remedy and whether S will succeed.
The leading case here is Clifford v Farinha (1988 (4) SA 315 (W)).
To succeed with this action the applicant must prove:
ownership (1) or retention of a lawful interest (½) from the date of the theft to the
date of institution of the action; (½)
theft (1) or removal of the thing with deceitful intent; (1)
if the action is not instituted against the thief or deceitful remover, that the
defendant is the heir of the former. (1)
With regards to the question whether S will succeed you must refer to the case of
Clifford v Farinha. (1) The court in similar circumstances to the question extended the
operation of this action to a person with a lawful interest in the thing (S) and against the
person (Z) who removed the thing – in this case the car with a deceitful intention. (1)
Therefore, S should succeed with the action against Z. (1)
(Study unit 6 pg 164)
2
,STUDY UNIT 7
Question 4 pg 180
Study unit 7 deals with co-ownership.
In this question you are asked to discuss the remedies available to X with reference to
case law. The facts of the question indicate that we are dealing with co-ownership and
the applicable remedy is the interdict.
The facts of the question are similar to the facts in Pretorius v Nefdt and Glas. (1) In this
case Pretorius, (X) applied for an interdict, firstly to force Glas (Y) to revoke his
permission to Nefdt (Z) and secondly to discontinue his activities regarding the transport
of lime. (½)
The court decided that the permission given by Glas (Y) to Nefdt (Z) was a clear
infringement of Pretorius’s (X) rights (1) and that the permission placed an intolerable
burden on Pretorius (X). (1) The interdict against Glas (Y) was successful. (1) X will
probably be successful with an interdict to force Y to revoke his permission to Z. (1)
Should X revoke his permission to Z. Z can no longer use the road over the farm.
Secondly, Pretorius (X) wanted to prevent Glas (Y) from transporting Nefdt’s (Z) lime
over the farm. The court stated that there is no authority on which on can rely to decide
that a co-owner’s use of the road is limited to the purpose of the farm over which the
road traverses. (1) Therefore, Pretorius (X) is not successful with this application for a
interdict. (1) X’s application for an interdict will probably not be successful either. (1)
3
, PVL3701 SU 6-7
STUDIE-EENHEID 6
Vraag 2 bl 162
Hierdie vraag handel oor die noodsaaklikheid om ‘n sekere aksie te stop of te verbied.
In hierdie vraag word van u verwag om aan te dui watter remedie van toepassing is op
die feitestel en om die remedie te bespreek met verwysing na die vereistes daarvan.
Hierdie vraag handel oor die interdik.
In beginsel is ‘n interdik ‘n summiere hofbevel waarvoor daar op ‘n dringende basis
aansoek gedoen word om ‘n persoon te dwing om iets te doen (‘n verpligtende interdik)
of om iets nie te doen nie (‘n verbiedende interdik). (1) Dit is ‘n spoedeisende remedie in
gevalle waar regte geskend word of op die punt staan om geskend te word. (1) In
hierdie vraag is die verbiedende interdik van toepassing omdat X gedwing word om op
te hou met ‘n sekere aktiwiteit.
Die vereistes vir ‘n interdik is in Setlogelo v Setlogelo (1) uiteengesit.
Die vereistes is :
‘n duidelike reg (1) (neem asseblief kennis dat hierdie vereiste ‘n duidelike reg is
– nie ‘n saaklike reg of eiendomsreg nie - Setlogelo illustreer hierdie punt);
daadwerklike of redelikerwys verwagte skending van ‘n reg; (1) en
en die afwesigheid van soortgelyke beskerming deur enige ander gewone
remedie. (1)
(Studie-eenheid 6 bl 161-162)
4
