Accession of Movables to Immovables: A Critical Analysis of USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd v Urban Print Factory (Pty) Ltd (30921/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1119 (14 February 2023)

Abstract

This note critically analyses USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd v Urban Print Factory (Pty) Ltd (30921/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1119 (14 February 2023). In this case the court had to determine whether a large Mitsubishi printing machine was permanently attached to the building it was housed in. The court held that the machine was not permanently attached to the building even though its removal required the destruction and subsequent reconstruction of at least one wall of the building.

It is argued in this note that the fact that the removal of the machine necessitated the destruction and subsequent reconstruction of the building arguably implies that the machine was permanently attached to the building. However, upon closer critical analysis of this decision and the factors that the court considered to arrive at its decision, it becomes apparent that the court was justified in deciding that the machine was not permanently attached to the building.

The fact that a wall had to be demolished and reconstructed to remove the machine was not an indication of accession but to create an exit space for the machine. The court's decision did not contradict the three factors for determining accession. I conclude in this note that the court was correct in its decision to consider the machine movable.