PVL3701
EXAM PACK
,PROPERTY LAW- PVL3701
AUGUST 2026
EXAM ANSWERS
QUESTION 1 [27]
1.1 [7]
A real right is a right that a person has in respect of a thing and which is enforceable
against third parties, while a personal right is a right enforceable only against a
particular person to perform an obligation. South African courts apply a two-fold test:
first, the intention of the parties regarding the nature of the right; and second, whether
the right has the necessary impact on the property, namely whether it substantially
limits the owner's rights and is capable of binding successors in title.
Here, Fatima obtained a contractual right to use a room for three years in return for rent.
The agreement primarily creates reciprocal personal obligations between Xolisa and
Fatima. During the first year, Fatima therefore has a personal right arising from the
lease, rather than a real right in the property.
(Ex parte Geldenhuys; Lorentz v Melle; Van Rensburg v Naidoo.)
1.2 [7]
Section 25(1) of the Constitution prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property. The
deprivation must therefore be authorised by law of general application and must not be
arbitrary. In First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Commissioner, SARS, the
Constitutional Court held that arbitrariness is determined by considering the relationship
between the deprivation, the purpose of the law and the property affected, including
whether sufficient reason exists for the deprivation.
The municipal land-use scheme regulates the use of Xolisa's residential property as an
office. It does not necessarily deprive him of ownership but limits a particular use of the
,property. The regulation is contained in a law of general application and pursues a
legitimate land-use and planning purpose. On these facts, the restriction is therefore
likely to constitute a constitutionally permissible deprivation, provided that the
limitation is rationally connected to the purpose and is not arbitrary.
(First National Bank of SA Ltd v Commissioner, SARS 2002 (4) SA 768 (CC).)
1.3 [6]
Fatima should not accept that Xolisa may simply change the locks when she falls into
arrears. A landlord may not ordinarily resort to self-help to dispossess a tenant of
possession. The mandament van spolie protects peaceful possession irrespective of
whether the possessor has a stronger legal right. Xolisa must use lawful legal
procedures to enforce his rights instead of taking possession by force or unilateral
lockout.
Therefore, the lock-changing clause cannot validly authorise unlawful self-help or
circumvent the legal requirements for termination and eviction. Fatima may seek
restoration of possession if Xolisa changes the locks unlawfully.
(Nino Bonino v De Lange 1906 TS 120; Yeko v Qana 1973 (4) SA 735 (A).)
1.4 [7]
Monica cannot terminate Fatima's occupation merely because she was not a party to
the original agreement. The principle huur gaat voor koop generally means that a
lease of property survives a subsequent sale of the property. When ownership is
transferred, the purchaser steps into the position of the former owner in respect of the
lease, subject to the applicable rules governing the particular lease.
Fatima's three-year lease was concluded before the sale and she was already in
occupation. Monica therefore acquired the property subject to Fatima's existing lease
rights. Monica cannot simply demand immediate vacation because of the lack of
contractual privity between herself and Fatima. She must respect the lease and may
terminate it only in accordance with the applicable legal rules.
, (Genna-Wae Properties (Pty) Ltd v Medio-Tronics (Natal) (Pty) Ltd 1995 (2) SA 926 (A);
Pheasant v Faze Two Investments (Pty) Ltd 2010 (2) SA 519 (SCA).)
QUESTION 2 [29]
2.1 [4]
Before the sale, Thuli was the registered owner of the residential property. Ownership
is the most comprehensive real right and entitles the owner, subject to legal limitations,
to use, enjoy, possess, alienate and exclude others from the property. Her ownership
extended to the land and its permanent accessories, including the swimming pool and
garage.
(Van der Walt & Pienaar, Property Law; Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd v MCC Contracts
(Pty) Ltd.)
2.2 [4]
Johan's agreement gives him a personal right to use the swimming pool on specified
days for six years. It is not automatically a real right merely because it concerns
immovable property. It is therefore a limitation on Thuli's ownership in the contractual
sense, but not necessarily a real burden on the land.
Since Johan's right is personal, it ordinarily binds Thuli rather than a subsequent owner.
Priya is therefore generally not bound by Johan's personal right merely because she
acquired the property.
(Ex parte Geldenhuys; Lorentz v Melle.)
2.3 [8]
Mark did not acquire ownership of the garage merely because he constructed it with his
own materials. The garage is a permanent structure attached to the land and
therefore forms part of the immovable property through the principle of accession
(accessio). Ownership of the building accrues to the owner of the land, subject to the
applicable rules concerning accession.
EXAM PACK
,PROPERTY LAW- PVL3701
AUGUST 2026
EXAM ANSWERS
QUESTION 1 [27]
1.1 [7]
A real right is a right that a person has in respect of a thing and which is enforceable
against third parties, while a personal right is a right enforceable only against a
particular person to perform an obligation. South African courts apply a two-fold test:
first, the intention of the parties regarding the nature of the right; and second, whether
the right has the necessary impact on the property, namely whether it substantially
limits the owner's rights and is capable of binding successors in title.
Here, Fatima obtained a contractual right to use a room for three years in return for rent.
The agreement primarily creates reciprocal personal obligations between Xolisa and
Fatima. During the first year, Fatima therefore has a personal right arising from the
lease, rather than a real right in the property.
(Ex parte Geldenhuys; Lorentz v Melle; Van Rensburg v Naidoo.)
1.2 [7]
Section 25(1) of the Constitution prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property. The
deprivation must therefore be authorised by law of general application and must not be
arbitrary. In First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Commissioner, SARS, the
Constitutional Court held that arbitrariness is determined by considering the relationship
between the deprivation, the purpose of the law and the property affected, including
whether sufficient reason exists for the deprivation.
The municipal land-use scheme regulates the use of Xolisa's residential property as an
office. It does not necessarily deprive him of ownership but limits a particular use of the
,property. The regulation is contained in a law of general application and pursues a
legitimate land-use and planning purpose. On these facts, the restriction is therefore
likely to constitute a constitutionally permissible deprivation, provided that the
limitation is rationally connected to the purpose and is not arbitrary.
(First National Bank of SA Ltd v Commissioner, SARS 2002 (4) SA 768 (CC).)
1.3 [6]
Fatima should not accept that Xolisa may simply change the locks when she falls into
arrears. A landlord may not ordinarily resort to self-help to dispossess a tenant of
possession. The mandament van spolie protects peaceful possession irrespective of
whether the possessor has a stronger legal right. Xolisa must use lawful legal
procedures to enforce his rights instead of taking possession by force or unilateral
lockout.
Therefore, the lock-changing clause cannot validly authorise unlawful self-help or
circumvent the legal requirements for termination and eviction. Fatima may seek
restoration of possession if Xolisa changes the locks unlawfully.
(Nino Bonino v De Lange 1906 TS 120; Yeko v Qana 1973 (4) SA 735 (A).)
1.4 [7]
Monica cannot terminate Fatima's occupation merely because she was not a party to
the original agreement. The principle huur gaat voor koop generally means that a
lease of property survives a subsequent sale of the property. When ownership is
transferred, the purchaser steps into the position of the former owner in respect of the
lease, subject to the applicable rules governing the particular lease.
Fatima's three-year lease was concluded before the sale and she was already in
occupation. Monica therefore acquired the property subject to Fatima's existing lease
rights. Monica cannot simply demand immediate vacation because of the lack of
contractual privity between herself and Fatima. She must respect the lease and may
terminate it only in accordance with the applicable legal rules.
, (Genna-Wae Properties (Pty) Ltd v Medio-Tronics (Natal) (Pty) Ltd 1995 (2) SA 926 (A);
Pheasant v Faze Two Investments (Pty) Ltd 2010 (2) SA 519 (SCA).)
QUESTION 2 [29]
2.1 [4]
Before the sale, Thuli was the registered owner of the residential property. Ownership
is the most comprehensive real right and entitles the owner, subject to legal limitations,
to use, enjoy, possess, alienate and exclude others from the property. Her ownership
extended to the land and its permanent accessories, including the swimming pool and
garage.
(Van der Walt & Pienaar, Property Law; Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd v MCC Contracts
(Pty) Ltd.)
2.2 [4]
Johan's agreement gives him a personal right to use the swimming pool on specified
days for six years. It is not automatically a real right merely because it concerns
immovable property. It is therefore a limitation on Thuli's ownership in the contractual
sense, but not necessarily a real burden on the land.
Since Johan's right is personal, it ordinarily binds Thuli rather than a subsequent owner.
Priya is therefore generally not bound by Johan's personal right merely because she
acquired the property.
(Ex parte Geldenhuys; Lorentz v Melle.)
2.3 [8]
Mark did not acquire ownership of the garage merely because he constructed it with his
own materials. The garage is a permanent structure attached to the land and
therefore forms part of the immovable property through the principle of accession
(accessio). Ownership of the building accrues to the owner of the land, subject to the
applicable rules concerning accession.
