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 , based on South African law of property.

Maria's most appropriate remedy under the circumstances would be to bring a claim for the return of the vehicle based on the principle of rei vindicatio. This is a legal action that allows the rightful owner of a movable object to claim it back from someone who possesses it unlawfully.

In this case, Maria can argue that she is the rightful owner of the vehicle because she bought it in a private sale. Even though Pete may have the spare set of keys and is in possession of the vehicle, Maria can claim that her ownership rights should prevail. She can prove her ownership by providing evidence of the private sale agreement and any other relevant documentation, such as proof of payment or transfer of ownership.

However, Pete may raise certain defenses against Maria's claim. Some possible defenses under South African law of property include:

1. Acquisitive prescription: Pete might argue that he has acquired ownership of the vehicle through acquisitive prescription, which is a legal principle that allows a person to acquire ownership of a movable object by possessing it for a certain period of time. Under South African law, the minimum period of possession required for acquisitive prescription is 3 years for movable property.

2. Estoppel: Pete may claim that Maria has implicitly or explicitly represented that he has the right to possess the vehicle, and he has relied on her representation to his detriment. This may create an estoppel that prevents Maria from claiming ownership of the vehicle.

It is important to note that the resolution of this ownership issue would ultimately depend on the specific facts and evidence presented in court. Maria should consult with a legal professional who specializes in property law to discuss her options and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of her claim.