The Continued Relevance Of The Mandament Van Spolie - Westville

21 Questions | Total Attempts: 89

SettingsSettingsSettings
The Continued Relevance Of The Mandament Van Spolie - Westville - Quiz


Questions and Answers
  • 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

  • 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)

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 12. 
    For the spoliation remedy to be successful, two requirements need to be met. First, the [Blank] must prove [Blank] and [Blank] possession of the property. Second, [Blank] deprivation by the [Blank] must be proven.
  • 13. 
    In the Mamelodi case, the City was ordered to [Blank] and [Blank] of the Mamelodi hostels to at least an [Blank] of the condition they were in [Blank]
  • 14. 
    In the Tswelopele case the court held that the mandament van spolie is not available in instances where [Blank] are required in order to restore the [Blank] 
  • 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

  • 16. 
    In the Mamelodi case, the City was ordered to only rebuild the roof
    • A. 

      True

    • B. 

      False

  • 17. 
    In Nino Bonino v De Lange the court highlighted that [Blank]
  • 18. 
    In the Mamelodi Hostel Residents and Tswelopele cases the court emphasised the importance of court orders [Blank] demolitions and evictions may be evicted.
  • 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

  • 20. 
    From the perspective of the occupier, PIE is inherently [Blank] and [Blank]
Back to Top Back to top