Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2014. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Inaedificatio entails that movables that have been permanently attached to land through building cease to exist as independent things and become part of the land. Courts have adopted different approaches over time to investigate whether or not inaedificatio had occurred. It is sometimes said that courts have moved away from the so-called traditional approach, which focused on the objective factors, to the so-called new approach, which places more emphasis on the subjective intention of the owner of the movables. This thesis analyses the applicable case law and concludes that there is inadequate proof of such a shift since both older cases associated with the traditional approach and later cases associated with the new approach emphasise the intention of the owner of the movables to establish whether accession had taken place. However, the case law does allow for a cautious different conclusion, namely that a certain line of both older and new cases emphasise the owner of the movable’s intention for commercial policy reasons, specifically to protect ownership of the movables in cases where ownership had been reserved in a credit sale contract. Constitutional analysis of these conclusions in view of the FNB methodology indicates that the courts’ decision to hold that accession had in fact occurred in cases that do involve permanent attachment of movables to land will generally establish deprivation of property for purposes of section 25(1) of the Constitution, but such deprivation would generally not be arbitrary since there would be sufficient reason for it. However, in cases where the courts decide that there was no accession because ownership of the movables had been reserved subject to a credit sale agreement, there is no deprivation of property because the landowner, who is the only one who might complain about the decision, could not prove a property interest for purposes of section 25(1). Moreover, the courts’ decision that accession had either occurred or not does not amount to expropriation under section 25(2) of the Constitution because there is no common law authority for expropriation. Therefore, the principal conclusion of the thesis is that the courts’ decision that accession had either occurred or not would generally be in line with the property clause of the Constitution. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Inaedificatio behels dat roerende sake wat permanent deur bebouing aan grond vasgeheg is ophou bestaan as selfstandige sake en deel word van die grond. Die howe het in die verlede verskillende benaderings gevolg in hulle pogings om vas te stel of inaedificatio plaasgevind het. Daar word soms beweer dat die howe wegbeweeg het van die sogenaamde tradisionele benadering, wat op die objektiewe faktore gefokus het, na die sogenaamde nuwe benadering waarin die klem op die eienaar van die roerende goed se bedoeling val. Hierdie verhandeling analiseer die toepaslike regspraak en kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat daar onvoldoende bewys van so ‘n verskuiwing bestaan, aangesien sowel ouer sake wat met die tradisionele benadering geassosieer word en later regspraak wat die nuwe benadering sou volg klem op die eienaar van die roerende sake se bedoeling plaas. Die regspraak bied wel bewyse vir ‘n versigtige gevolgtrekking op ‘n ander punt, naamlik dat bepaalde ouer en later sake die eienaar van die roerende goed se bedoeling vir kommersiële beleidsredes beklemtoon, spesifiek in gevalle waar eiendomsreg in ‘n kredietkoop voorbehou is. Grondwetlike analise van hierdie gevolgtrekkings in die lig van die FNB-metodologie suggereer dat die howe se beslissing dat aanhegting wel plaasgevind het in gevalle waar permanente aanhegting van roerende goed aan grond ter sprake was oor die algemeen ‘n ontneming van eiendom vir doeleindes van artikel 25(1) van die Grondwet sal daarstel, maar aangesien daar oor die algemeen voldoende rede vir die ontneming is sal dit nie arbitrêr wees nie. Aan die ander kant, waar die howe beslis dat daar geen aanhegting was nie omdat eiendomsreg van die roerende goed vir sekerheid onderhewig aan ‘n kredietkoop voorbehou is, is daar geen ontneming van eiendom nie omdat die grondeienaar, die enigste party wat beswaar teen die beslissing mag maak, nie ‘n eiendomsbelang vir doeleindes van artikel 25(1) kan bewys nie. Verder stel die howe se beslissing dat aanhegting óf plaasgevind het al dan nie in elk geval geen onteiening daar nie aangesien daar geen magtiging vir onteiening in die gemenereg bestaan nie. Die gevolgtrekking van die verhandeling is dat die howe se beslissing dat aanhegting óf plaasgevind het al dan nie oor die algemeen nie in stryd met die eiendomsbepaling in die Grondwet sal wees nie.

Hierdie proefskrif handel oor aspekte van inaedificatio (bebouing) in die Suid-Afrikaanse, Engelse en Nederlandse reg. Die klem val op die maatstawwe wat aangewend word om te bepaal of aanhegting van ‘n roerende saak aan ‘n onroerende saak plaasgevind het. Die maatstawwe in die drie stelsels toon ooreenkomste en verskille. Een ooreenkoms is dat die graad en wyse van aanhegting in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg oorweeg word, terwyl daar in die Engelse reg slegs na die graad van aanhegting gekyk word. In die Nederlandse reg word ’n duursame verbinding vereis om te bepaal of bestanddeelvorming plaasgevind het, en word gevra of verwydering van die saak sonder beskadiging kan plaasvind. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg word die doel van die aangehegte saak oorweeg, hoewel Innes HR dit nie in MacDonald Ltd v Radin NO & The Potchefstroom Dairies & Industries Co Ltd so formuleer nie. Die aard van die roerende saak word in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg oorweeg, terwyl die aard en ontwerp van die roerende saak in die Nederlandse reg oorweeg word. In die Engelse reg word die doel waarvoor die aanhegting gemaak is oorweeg om die bedoeling met die aanhegting te bepaal. Die vraag is of die saak vir die permanente en substansiële verbetering van die gebou (grond) aangeheg is, of vir ’n tydelike doel of vir die beter benutting van die chattel. Die Nederlandse reg beklemtoon die bestemming van die aanhegting. Die opvallendste verskil tussen die Suid-Afrikaanse reg en die ander twee stelsels is die belang van die subjektiewe bedoeling van een of ander betrokkene. Die regsposisie van huurders wat sake aanheg verskil van dié van ander aanhegters. In al drie regstelsels kan huurders voor afloop van die huurtermyn sommige aangehegte sake verwyder, mits die huurgrond in dieselfde toestand gelaat word as waarin dit was voor die aanhegting. Die drie stelsels vertoon verskille soos dat onsekerheid bestaan oor wie die eienaar van die aangehegte sake is voor verwydering. In die Engelse reg heg bedryfsaanhegtings en ornamentele aanhegtings, nie aan nie. Ingevolge die Nederlandse reg is die verhuurder gedurende die huurtermyn eienaar van die aanhegtings, aangesien aanhegting plaasvind sodra die roerende sake aan die huurgrond heg. Die Suid-Afrikaanse reg hieroor is onduidelik. / This thesis deals with aspects of inaedificatio (building) in South African, English and Dutch law. The emphasis falls on the criteria that are applied to determine whether attachment of a movable to an immovable thing occurred. The criteria in the three systems show similarities and differences. One similarity is that in South African law the degree and manner of attachment are considered, while in English law only the degree of attachment is considered. To determine whether one thing became a component part of another thing (bestanddeelvorming) a durable connection is required In Dutch law. The question is whether removal can take place without causing damage. The purpose of the attached thing is considered in South African law, although Innes CJ did not formulate this criterion in this manner in MacDonald Ltd v Radin NO & The Potchefstroom Dairies & Industries Co Ltd. The nature of the movable thing is relevant, while the nature and design of the movable thing are considered in Dutch law. In English law the purpose of the attachment is considered to determine the intention with the attachment. The question is whether the thing was attached for the permanent and substantial improvement of the building (land) or for a temporary purpose or for the better use of the chattel. The destination (bestemming) of the attachment is considered in Dutch law. The most significant difference between South African law and the other two systems is the importance of the subjective intention of some person involved in the situation. The legal position of lessees who attach movales differs from that of other persons who make such attachments. In all three legal systems lessees may remove certain attached movables before the expiry of the term of lease as long as the leased land is left in the same condition that it was in before the attachment. The three systems also differs for example it is not certain who the owner of the attached things is before removal of the attachments. In English law trade and ornamental fixtures do not attach. In Dutch law the lessor is the owner of the attachments during the term of lease, because attachment takes place when the movable things are fixed to the leased land. The position in South African law on this is unclear. / Private Law / LL. D.