Mlombo v Fourie

Last updated

Mlombo v Fourie [1] is an important and contentious case in South African property law. It was heard before Trollip J in the Transvaal Provincial Division on May 29, 1964.

Contents

Facts

Mlombo, the owner of the property, instituted the rei vindicatio action against Fourie for having fraudulently ceased to possess it.

Judgment

The court ordered Fourie to make good the value of the lost property.

Criticism

The decision has been criticised by legal commentators for having blurred the distinction between the rei vindicatio and the actio ad exhibendum . [2] [3] The rei vindicatio, or vindicatory action, is a remedy available to an owner to reclaim his property, from wherever it is found and from whosoever is holding it, entitling him to "exclusive possession." [4] The true application of the remedy is aimed merely at restoring proprietary interest; it does not include damages. [5] The actio ad exhibendum, which is a delictual remedy, usually does include a claim for damages. By awarding damages in terms of the rei vindicatio, which is a restorative proprietary remedy, the court failed to appreciate this distinction.

See also

Related Research Articles

Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land) and personal property. Property refers to legally protected claims to resources, such as land and personal property, including intellectual property. Property can be exchanged through contract law, and if property is violated, one could sue under tort law to protect it.

In laws of equity, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defences such as change of position. Liability for an unjust enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced to Roman law and the maxim that "no one should be benefited at another's expense": nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura or nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura.

Replevin or claim and delivery is a legal remedy, which enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, and to obtain compensation for resulting losses.

Accession has different definitions depending upon its application.

Trover is a form of lawsuit in common-law countries for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself.

Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VIII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law.

Ius privatum is Latin for private law. Contrasted with ius publicum, ius privatum regulated the relations between individuals. In Roman law this included personal, property and civil law. Judicial proceeding was a private process. Criminal law was also considered private matters, except where the crimes were particularly severe.

Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England & Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.

Rapina – theft with violence – was a delict of Roman law.

Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers [2004] ZACC 7 decided by the Constitutional Court in 2004, is an important case in South African law, with significance especially for post-apartheid property rights and constitutional supremacy.

South African property law

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

<i>Alexkor Ltd v Richtersveld Community</i> South African legal case

Alexkor v Richtersveld Community, decided by the Constitutional Court in 2001, is an important case in South African law, with a particular bearing on the law of property and the use of customary law.

The South African law of delict engages primarily with ‘the circumstances in which one person can claim compensation from another for harm that has been suffered’. JC Van der Walt and Rob Midgley define a delict ‘in general terms [...] as a civil wrong’, and more narrowly as ‘wrongful and blameworthy conduct which causes harm to a person’. Importantly, however, the civil wrong must be an actionable one, resulting in liability on the part of the wrongdoer or tortfeasor.

Apostoliese Geloofsending van Suid-Afrika v Capes is an important case in South African property law, especially in respect of the application of estoppel, in its limitation of the rei vindicatio, to immovable property. It was heard in the Cape Provincial Division by Friedman R from 1 November 1977, to 10 February 1978, with judgment handed down on 12 May.

Thienhaus NO v Metje & Ziegler Ltd and Another is an important case in South African property law. It was heard in the Appellate Division, by Steyn CJ, Van Blerk JA, Ogilvie Thompson JA, Williamson JA and Wessels JA, on 22 February 1965, with judgment handed down on 1 April.

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Saunderson and Others is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by Howie P, Cameron JA, Nugent JA, Jafta JA and Mlambo JA on 23 November 2005, with judgment handed down on 15 December.

The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which came into effect on 5 June, 1998, and which sets out to prevent arbitrary evictions.

Furtum was a delict of Roman law comparable to the modern offence of theft despite being a civil and not criminal wrong. In the classical law and later, it denoted the contrectatio ("handling") of most types of property with a particular sort of intention – fraud and in the later law, a view to gain. It is unclear whether a view to gain was always required or added later, and, if the latter, when. This meant that the owner did not consent, although Justinian broadened this in at least one case. The law of furtum protected a variety of property interests, but not land, things without an owner, or types of state or religious things. An owner could commit theft by taking his things back in certain circumstances, as could a borrower or similar user through misuse.

Damnum iniuria datum was a delict of Roman law relating to the wrongful damage to property. It was created by the Lex Aquilia in the third century BC, and consisted of two parts: chapter one, which dealt with the killing of another's slave or certain types of animal; and chapter three which related to other types of property. It was widely extended both by reference to the words of the statute themselves and by the Praetor.

The South African law of sale is an area of the legal system in that country that describes rules applicable to a contract of sale, generally described as a contract whereby one person agrees to deliver to another the free possession of a thing in return for a price in money.

References

Books

Cases

Notes

  1. 1964 (3) SA 350 (T).
  2. Mostert & Pope 219.
  3. Badenhorst et al 246.
  4. Mostert & Pope 217.
  5. Mostert & Pope 219.