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)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a17684Keywords:
Accession, inaedificatio, movables, immovables, ownershipAbstract
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.
Downloads
References
Bibliography
Literature
Breitenbach A "Reflection on Inaedificatio" 1985 THRHR 462-465
Carey Miller DL "Fixtures and Auxiliary Items: Are Recent Decisions Blurring Real Rights and Personal Rights?" 1984 SALJ 205-211
Freedman W "The Test for Inaedificatio: What Role Should the Element of Subjective Intention Play?" 2000 SALJ 667-676
Knobel I "Accession of Movables to Land: South African Law and Dutch Law" 2012 CILSA 77-90
Lewis C "Superficies Solo Cedit – Sed Quid Est Superficies?" 1979 SALJ 94-107
Maripe B "Intention and the Original Acquisition of Ownership: Whither Inaedificatio?" 1998 SALJ 544-552
Muller G et al Silberberg and Schoeman's The Law of Property 6th ed (LexisNexis Durban 2019)
Pope A et al The Principles of the Law of Property in South Africa 2nd ed (Oxford University Press Cape Town 2020)
Sono NL Developing the Law Regarding Inaedificatio: A Constitutional Analysis (LLM-thesis Stellenbosch University 2014)
Van der Merwe CG "Things" in Joubert WA and Faris JA (eds) The Law of South Africa Vol 27 2nd ed (LexisNexis Durban 2014)
Van der Merwe CG and Pienaar JM "The Law of Property (Including Real Security)" 1999 ASSAL 290-293
Van der Walt AJ and Sono NL "The Law Regarding Inaedificatio: A Constitutional Analysis" 2016 THRHR 195-212
Van Vliet LPW "Accession of Movables to Land: II" 2002 Edin LR 199-216
Case law
De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Ataqua Mining (Pty) Ltd [2007] ZAFSHC 74 (13 December 2007)
Konstanz Properties (Pty) Ltd v Wm Spilhaus en Kie (WP) Bpk 1996 3 SA 273 (A)
Melcorp SA (Pty) Ltd v Joint Municipal Pension Fund (TvI) 1980 2 SA 214 (W)
Olivier v Haarhof & Company 1906 TS 497
Opperman v Stanley [2010] ZAGPPHC 221 (9 December 2010)
Standard-Vacuum Refining Co v Durban City Council 1961 2 SA 669 (A)
Unimark Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Erf 94 Silvertondale (Pty) Ltd 1999 2 SA 986 (T)
USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd v Urban Print Factory (Pty) Ltd (30921/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1119 (14 February 2023)
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Nhlanhla Sono
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.png){kind=spacer}