The below excerpt is taken from Z Boggenpoel, ‘Applying the Mandament van Spolie in the Case of Incorporeals: Two Recent Examples from Case Law’ (2015) 1 TSAR 76, 77:

[C]ourts have had difficulty in trying to establish what constitutes possession in the case of incorporeals. Consequently, the application of the possession requirement with incorporeals has not always been consistent and there seem to be conflicting judgments on the question of what is required in order for one to be successful with the mandament van spolie where incorporeals are purportedly spoliated.

You must write an introduction. Also, provide an outline (list of contents) of how you intend to structure the discussion. Furthermore, include a list of sources that you intend to use. The assignment will be assessed, and you will receive comments to enable you to complete Assignment 2.

Refer to relevant sources in footnotes.

Critically analyse whether the two judgments (Van Rhyn NO v Fleurbaix Farm (Pty) Ltd 2013 (5) SA 521 (WCC) and City of Cape Town v Strümpher 2012 (4) SA 207 (SCA), as discussed in the article, can be faulted for providing an inaccurate reflection of the law concerning the quasi- possession of incorporeals.

Answers to Above Questions on Advanced Property Law

Answer 1: The concept of possession has significant importance in property law and it is quite significant especially when dealing with intangible assets. This is mainly because of difficulties in defining possession while dealing with the cases involving intangible assets. The main focus of analysis in this paper is on the application of possession requirement especially in the context of Mandament Van Spolie with respect to incorporeal assets, and the main focus is on analysing the conflicting judicial interpretation in this case.