Which statement is INCORRECT regarding Tebogo's legal position concerning Angi's rented car?

The question asks to identify the incorrect statement regarding Tebogo's legal position concerning Angi's car, which Tebogo is renting.

Let's analyze each statement:

• a. Tebogo has a personal right over the car.

  • A lease agreement creates a personal right (or ius in personam) for the lessee (Tebogo) against the lessor (Angi). This right means Angi is obligated to allow Tebogo to use the car. This statement is correct.

• b. Tebogo is the lawful holder of the car.

  • As a lessee, Tebogo has physical control of the car with the permission of the owner (Angi). This makes her a lawful holder (or detentor). She holds the car lawfully, but without the intention of being the owner. This statement is correct.

• c. Tebogo has a real right over the car.

  • A real right (or ius in rem) is a right in a thing itself, enforceable against the whole world (e.g., ownership, servitude, usufruct). A lease agreement, however, only creates personal rights between the parties to the contract. Tebogo does not own the car, nor does she have any other real right over it. This statement is incorrect.

• d. Tebogo is a lessee of the car.

  • The scenario states that "Angi rents her car to Tebogo." In a rental agreement, the person who rents the property is called the lessee. This statement is correct.

Therefore, the incorrect statement is that Tebogo has a real right over the car.

The final answer is $\boxed{\text{c}}$