The Continued Relevance Of The Mandament Van Spolie - Westville
- 1.
In which one of the following cases was the mandament van spolie successful ?
- A.
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v The Mamelodi Hostel Residents Association
- B.
Tswelopele Non-Profit Organisation v Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
- C.
Schubart Park Residents' Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
- D.
Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council v ABSA Bank
Correct Answer
C. Schubart Park Residents' Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan MunicipalityExplanation
The mandament van spolie was successful in the case of Schubart Park Residents' Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
The Constitution provides that no person may be evicted from his or her home without a court order
- A.
Section 25(2)
- B.
Section 25(3)
- C.
Section 26(2)
- D.
Section 26(3)
Correct Answer
C. Section 26(2)Explanation
Section 26(2) of the Constitution states that no person may be evicted from their home without a court order. This means that landlords or any other individuals cannot forcibly remove someone from their residence without following the proper legal procedures. The court order ensures that the eviction is fair and just, protecting the rights of the individual and preventing arbitrary evictions. This provision aims to safeguard the right to adequate housing and provide security of tenure for individuals in their homes.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v The Mamelodi Hostel Residents Association : which one of the following statements is incorrect ?
- A.
The occupiers of the hostels had mostly been employed as migrant labourers in the mines
- B.
The City arranged alternative accommodation for the residents
- C.
The court a quo dismissed the application for a mandament van spolie
- D.
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the dispossession was unlawful
Correct Answer
A. The occupiers of the hostels had mostly been employed as migrant labourers in the minesExplanation
The given answer is incorrect because the statement "The occupiers of the hostels had mostly been employed as migrant labourers in the mines" is true.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
Schubart Part Residents' Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality concerned
- A.
Demolition of shacks
- B.
Removal of shelters
- C.
Destruction of building materials
- D.
Disconnection of water and electricity
Correct Answer
D. Disconnection of water and electricityExplanation
The correct answer is "Disconnection of water and electricity". This means that the case of Schubart Part Residents' Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality involved the issue of cutting off the supply of water and electricity to the affected residents. This action could have been taken by the municipality as a means of addressing the problem of illegal shacks and shelters, and the destruction of building materials in the area.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Choose the incorrect statement : The mandament van spolie remedy ...
- A.
Protects possession of property
- B.
Requires ius possidendi
- C.
Restores possession to persons who have been unlawfully dispossessed of their property
- D.
Is the only true possessory remedy remaining in modern South African law
Correct Answer
B. Requires ius possidendiExplanation
The mandament van spolie remedy requires ius possidendi. This means that in order to seek protection under this remedy, the person must have the right to possess the property. If the person does not have ius possidendi, they cannot rely on the mandament van spolie remedy to restore their possession. This requirement ensures that only those who have a legitimate claim to the property can seek protection under this remedy.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
In which one of the following cases was the mandament van spolie successful ?
- A.
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v The Mamelodi Hostel Residents Association
- B.
Tswelopele Non-Profit Organisation v Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
- C.
Schubart Park Residents' Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
- D.
Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council v ABSA Bank
Correct Answer
C. Schubart Park Residents' Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan MunicipalityExplanation
The mandament van spolie was successful in the case of Schubart Park Residents' Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
In which case did the court grant the mandament van spolie and order the spoliator to re-erect the wire fence on the applicant's property in order to restore the fence to its former condition ?
- A.
Jones v Claremont Municipality
- B.
Zinman v Miller
- C.
Fredericks v Stellenbosch Divisional Council
- D.
Nino Bonino v De Lange
Correct Answer
A. Jones v Claremont MunicipalityExplanation
In the case of Jones v Claremont Municipality, the court granted the mandament van spolie and ordered the spoliator to re-erect the wire fence on the applicant's property in order to restore the fence to its former condition.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
The first judgement that dealt with the co-existence of PIE and the mandament van spolie was :
- A.
Jones v Claremont Municipality
- B.
City of Cape Town v Rudolph
- C.
De Jager v Farah and Nestadt
- D.
Nino Bonino v De Lange
Correct Answer
B. City of Cape Town v Rudolph -
- 9.
In the Tswelopele case, which one of the following rights was not infringed ?
- A.
Right to privacy
- B.
Right to property
- C.
Right to freedom of association
- D.
Right to personal security
Correct Answer
C. Right to freedom of associationExplanation
The Tswelopele case did not infringe on the right to freedom of association. This means that the individuals involved in the case were not restricted or prevented from forming associations or joining groups of their choosing. The other rights mentioned - right to privacy, right to property, and right to personal security - may have been infringed upon in some way during the Tswelopele case. However, it is important to note that without more context or information about the case, it is difficult to provide a comprehensive explanation.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
In the Schubart case, which of the following statements is correct ?
- A.
The High Court held that the mandament van spolie was the appropriate remedy
- B.
The High Court application for reoccupation of possession was granted
- C.
The Constitutional Court held that that the mandamant van spolie could not be granted
- D.
The Constitutional Court held that the mandament van spolie was the appropriate remedy in the circumstances
Correct Answer
C. The Constitutional Court held that that the mandamant van spolie could not be granted -
- 11.
Which one of the following statements is correct in relation to PIE ?
- A.
PIE may only be used by organs of state to evict unlawful occupiers
- B.
PIE may only be used by the owner or person in charge of the property to evict unlawful occupiers
- C.
PIE may be used by the owner or person in charge of the property or organs of state to evict unlawful occupiers
- D.
PIE may not be used by organs of state to evict unlawful occupiers
Correct Answer
C. PIE may be used by the owner or person in charge of the property or organs of state to evict unlawful occupiersExplanation
The correct answer is that PIE may be used by the owner or person in charge of the property or organs of state to evict unlawful occupiers. This means that both private individuals and government entities have the right to use PIE (Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act) to remove people who are unlawfully occupying their property.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
For the spoliation remedy to be successful, two requirements need to be met. First, the ________ must prove ________ and ________ possession of the property. Second, ________ deprivation by the ________ must be proven.
Correct Answer
spoliatus
peaceful
undisturbed
unlawful
spoliatorExplanation
The spoliation remedy can be successful if two requirements are met. First, the spoliatus (the person who was dispossessed) must prove that they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property. Second, the spoliator (the person who unlawfully deprived the spoliatus of the property) must be proven to have committed the unlawful deprivation.Rate this question:
- 13.
In the Mamelodi case, the City was ordered to ________ and ________ of the Mamelodi hostels to at least an ________ of the condition they were in ________
Correct Answer
restore the roof structures
roof covering of block J
equivalent
prior to the destruction thereofExplanation
In the Mamelodi case, the City was ordered to restore the roof structures and roof covering of block J to at least an equivalent of the condition they were in prior to the destruction thereof. This means that the City is required to repair and replace the damaged roof structures and roof covering of block J in Mamelodi, ensuring that they are brought back to a similar or equal condition as they were before they were destroyed.Rate this question:
- 14.
In the Tswelopele case the court held that the mandament van spolie is not available in instances where ________ are required in order to restore the ________
Correct Answer
substitute materials
status quo anteExplanation
The court held in the Tswelopele case that the mandament van spolie cannot be used when substitute materials are needed to restore the status quo ante. This means that if the restoration of the original state requires the use of different materials or objects, the mandament van spolie cannot be applied.Rate this question:
- 15.
In some instances the spoliator might be required to do more than merely return the possession of the spoliated property
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
In certain situations, the person who unlawfully takes possession of someone else's property may be obligated to do more than just give it back. This could include compensating the owner for any damages or losses caused by the spoliation. Therefore, the statement that the spoliator might be required to do more than merely return the possession of the spoliated property is true.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
In the Mamelodi case, the City was ordered to only rebuild the roof
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
In the Mamelodi case, the City was not ordered to only rebuild the roof.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
In Nino Bonino v De Lange the court highlighted that ________
Correct Answer
No person is entitled to take the law into their own handsExplanation
The court in Nino Bonino v De Lange emphasized the principle that no individual has the right to administer justice themselves. This means that no person is allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner, bypassing the legal system and taking matters into their own hands. This principle upholds the importance of due process and the rule of law, ensuring that disputes and conflicts are resolved in a fair and impartial manner through the established legal system.Rate this question:
- 18.
In the Mamelodi Hostel Residents and Tswelopele cases the court emphasised the importance of court orders ________ demolitions and evictions may be evicted.
Correct Answer
beforeExplanation
The court emphasized the importance of court orders in the Mamelodi Hostel Residents and Tswelopele cases, stating that demolitions and evictions should not occur before obtaining a court order. This suggests that the court wants to ensure that proper legal procedures are followed and that individuals are not unfairly evicted or displaced without due process.Rate this question:
- 19.
In the Tswelopele case, the court upheld the distinction between the common law requirements of the mandament van spolie and the constitutional relief that claimants would be entitled to in terms of section 28 of the Constitution
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
The statement in the question is discussing the Tswelopele case and the distinction between the common law requirements of the mandament van spolie and the constitutional relief under section 28 of the Constitution. The correct answer is False because the question does not provide any information or context to determine whether the court upheld or rejected the distinction.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
From the perspective of the occupier, PIE is inherently ________ and ________
Correct Answer
reactive
responsiveExplanation
From the perspective of the occupier, PIE is inherently reactive and responsive. This means that PIE, which stands for Participatory, Incremental, and Evolutionary, is designed to adapt and respond to the needs and feedback of the occupier. It is a dynamic approach that allows for flexibility and adjustment based on the occupier's input and changing circumstances. By being reactive and responsive, PIE ensures that the occupier's concerns and preferences are taken into account, leading to a more effective and satisfactory outcome.Rate this question:
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 21, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Apr 02, 2019Quiz Created by
Carey Robertson