MRL3701 Assignment 2
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2026 - DUE 24
March 2026
[Document subtitle]
[School]
[Course title]
, Exam (elaborations)
MRL3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 24 March 2026
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Course
Insolvency Law (MRL3701)
MRL3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 24 March 2026;
100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
In Harksen v Lane 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC), section 21 of the Insolvency Act was challenged in the
Constitutional Court. In this case, Harksen argued that section 21 infringed her rights because it
amounted to an expropriation of her property. With reference to relevant legislation, provide the
reasons why the Constitutional Court found that section 21 did not infringe on her rights in terms
of the Interim Constitution.
Harksen argued that section 21 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 infringed her property rights
under the Interim Constitution, because it resulted in an expropriation of her property when
her husband was sequestrated.
Relevant legislation
1. Section 21 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936
Upon sequestration of a debtor’s estate:
o All property of the debtor’s spouse vests in the trustee.
o The spouse may reclaim the property by proving that it belongs to her and was
acquired independently of the insolvent estate.
The vesting is temporary and provisional, pending proof.
2. Section 28 of the Interim Constitution (Act 200 of 1993)
Protects property against arbitrary deprivation.
Permits expropriation only:
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2026 - DUE 24
March 2026
[Document subtitle]
[School]
[Course title]
, Exam (elaborations)
MRL3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 24 March 2026
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Course
Insolvency Law (MRL3701)
MRL3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 24 March 2026;
100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
In Harksen v Lane 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC), section 21 of the Insolvency Act was challenged in the
Constitutional Court. In this case, Harksen argued that section 21 infringed her rights because it
amounted to an expropriation of her property. With reference to relevant legislation, provide the
reasons why the Constitutional Court found that section 21 did not infringe on her rights in terms
of the Interim Constitution.
Harksen argued that section 21 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 infringed her property rights
under the Interim Constitution, because it resulted in an expropriation of her property when
her husband was sequestrated.
Relevant legislation
1. Section 21 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936
Upon sequestration of a debtor’s estate:
o All property of the debtor’s spouse vests in the trustee.
o The spouse may reclaim the property by proving that it belongs to her and was
acquired independently of the insolvent estate.
The vesting is temporary and provisional, pending proof.
2. Section 28 of the Interim Constitution (Act 200 of 1993)
Protects property against arbitrary deprivation.
Permits expropriation only:
