Pete is a medical doctor living in Bloemfontein and currently busy specializing. He drives an old VW Jetta and one morning before work he parks it in the parking area of Universitas Hospital. After finishing his shift in the afternoon, he arrives in the parking area to find that the vehicle has been stolen. Pete claims from his short-term insurance and buys an old VW Golf with the money he receives from them. Approximately six months later, Pete notices the Jetta in the parking area of the Pick and Pay. He is able to identify the car due to a small dent in the fender that his wife has given the car some years ago. Pete still has the spare set of keys of the Jetta and drives it back to his home, believing that he has the right to the car. However, a lady, Maria, now claims to be the rightful owner of the car, having bought it in a private sale. Maria has been in possession of the car for four months before the incident took place. Without going into the merits of the ownership issue, advise Maria regarding her most appropriate remedy under the circumstances. Also indicate to her which possible defences Pete may raise against the remedy you advised.

Maria's most appropriate remedy under the circumstances would be to bring a claim for the return of the stolen vehicle against Pete. Maria can make use of the legal principle of rei vindicatio, which allows a person to claim back their stolen property from anyone who is currently in possession of it.

Maria may also be able to claim damages from Pete for any losses she has suffered as a result of the theft and subsequent use of the vehicle. This could include any expenses related to purchasing a replacement vehicle and any inconvenience or distress caused by the incident.

However, Pete may raise certain defenses against Maria's claim. These defenses may include:

1. Ownership: Pete may argue that he is the rightful owner of the Jetta because he had originally purchased it and only temporarily lost possession due to theft. He may claim that he has a superior right to the vehicle based on his prior ownership.

2. Good faith: Pete may argue that he believed he had the right to take back the vehicle since he recognized it as his own and had the spare set of keys. He may claim that he acted in good faith and therefore should not be held liable for any damages or losses suffered by Maria.

3. Acquisitive prescription: Pete may argue that he has acquired ownership of the Jetta through acquisitive prescription. In certain jurisdictions, if a person is in possession of an item for a certain period of time (often many years), they can acquire legal ownership of that item.

It is important to note that the merits of the ownership issue were not addressed in the question, so it is possible that Maria may in fact have a stronger claim to the vehicle. However, based on the information provided, Maria's most appropriate remedy would be to bring a claim for the return of the stolen vehicle and any associated damages.