Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Rostock.

Thesis (LL. M.)--University of Toronto, 2004. / Adviser: Anthony Duggan.

Zugleich: Diss. regensburg, 2008. / Literaturverz.

Text in Afrikaans / This thesis deals with the nature and operation of liens in South African law. Whereas enrichment liens are classified as real rights, debtor creditor liens are not (sometimes they are referred to as personal rights). The South African law of lien is principally founded on Roman Dutch law and is similar to Dutch law before the enactment of the current Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In Dutch law the BW specifies which persons have a lien and under what circumstances. In South African law a creditor can establish a lien against an owner who has a duty to perform in terms of an agreement between the parties or, in the absence of such an agreement, on the basis of unjustified enrichment. My research has shown that a lien is not a subjective right but a capacity vested in a creditor by operation of law. It empowers him to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing until the creditor’s claim against him has been discharged. Extra-judicially the lien holder can rely on his lien or he can raise it as a defence against the owner’s rei vindicatio. The categorisation of liens as either enrichment liens, or debtor creditor liens is at the most an indication of the different sources of the creditor’s right to which the lien is accessory. In Dutch law liens are classified as verhaalsrechten on the owner’s estate. These rights (verhaalsrechten) are further classified as specific opschortingsrechten. A lien is therefore a capacity granted to certain creditors by law to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing. Regarding the operation of liens against third parties (derdenwerking), Dutch law distinguishes between a third party with an older right to the thing and a third party with a later right to the thing. In South African case law derdewerking (real operation) of liens is often used to explain the fact that the lienholder may, in the absence of an agreement with the owner, retain the owner’s thing until his claim against the owner has been discharged. In South African law a lien is a defence to the owner’s rei vindicatio. Reliance on real operation (derdewerking) is often a means of explaining that a lien exists against an owner with whom the creditor had no agreement. Real operation, however, refers to the question against whom other than the owner the lien may be enforced once its existence has been established. A lien can be enforced against the creditors of the owner (debtor), the curator of the debtor’s insolvent estate, heirs, mortgagees and servitude holders. In Dutch law the BW grants preference to liens. Owing to the particular provisions of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 liens in South African law enjoy preference above other secured creditors of the insolvent owner (debtor). / Hierdie proefskrif handel oor die aard en werking van retensieregte in die Suid- Afrikaanse reg. Verrykingsretensieregte word algemeen as saaklike regte bestempel en skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte nie. Laasgenoemde word soms as persoonlike regte tipeer. Die Suid-Afrikaanse reg insake retensieregte is hoofsaaklik op die Romeins-Hollandse reg geskoei en stem in ‘n groot mate ooreen met die posisie in die Nederlandse reg voor die inwerkingtreding van die huidige Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In die Nederlandse reg bepaal die BW uitdruklik watter persone in watter omstandighede ‘n retensiereg het. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg kan ‘n skuldeiser ‘n retensiereg vestig teen ‘n eienaar wat prestasiepligtig is op grond van ‘n ooreenkoms met die skuldeiser of, in die afwesigheid van ‘n ooreenkoms, op grond van verryking. My navorsing toon dat ‘n retensiereg nie ‘n subjektiewe reg is nie, maar ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur regswerking totstandkom. Dit stel die skuldeiser in staat om die eienaar (skuldenaar) se saak te hou totdat die eienaar voldoen aan die vorderingsreg wat die skuldeiser teen hom het. Die retensiereghouer kan buitegeregtelik daarop steun, of dit as ‘n verweer teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio aanwend. Die kategorisering van retensieregte in skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte en verrykingsretensieregte is hoogstens aanduidend van die verskillende ontstaansbronne van die vorderingsreg waartoe die retensiereg aksessoor is. In die Nederlandse reg word retensieregte in die BW as verhaalsregte op die eienaar se boedel geklassifiseer. Hierdie verhaalsregte word uitdruklik as besondere opskortingsregte getipeer. ‘n Retensiereg is dus ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur die objektiewe reg aan sekere skuldeisers verleen word. Ten aansien van die derdewerking van retensieregte tref die Nederlandse reg ‘n onderskeid tussen ‘n derde met ‘n later reg op die saak en ‘n derde met ‘n ouer reg op die saak. In die Suid-Afrikaanse regspraak word “derdewerking” dikwels aangewend om te verklaar waarom die retensiereghouer ‘n eienaar se saak mag terughou totdat hy vergoed is vir uitgawes wat hy aan die eienaar se saak aangebring het, terwyl hy geen ooreenkoms met die eienaar gehad het nie. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg is ‘n retensiereg ‘n verweer wat teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio geopper kan word. Die beroep op “derdewerking” is dus dikwels die kapstok om te bepaal of ‘n retensiereg teen die eienaar geopper kan word, terwyl dit eintlik verwys na die afdwingbaarheid van ‘n bestaande retensiereg teen ander persone as die eienaar. ‘n Retensiereg kan teen skuldeisers van die skuldenaar, die kurator van die skuldenaar se insolvente boedel, erfgename, verbandhouers en serwituutgeregtigdes afgedwing word. In die Nederlandse reg verleen die BW voorkeur aan retensieregte. Vanweë die besondere bepalings in die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936 geniet retensieregte in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg ook voorkeur bo ander versekerde skuldeisers van die insolvente eienaar (skuldenaar). / Private Law / LL.D.

Text in Afrikaans / This thesis deals with the nature and operation of liens in South African law. Whereas enrichment liens are classified as real rights, debtor creditor liens are not (sometimes they are referred to as personal rights). The South African law of lien is principally founded on Roman Dutch law and is similar to Dutch law before the enactment of the current Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In Dutch law the BW specifies which persons have a lien and under what circumstances. In South African law a creditor can establish a lien against an owner who has a duty to perform in terms of an agreement between the parties or, in the absence of such an agreement, on the basis of unjustified enrichment. My research has shown that a lien is not a subjective right but a capacity vested in a creditor by operation of law. It empowers him to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing until the creditor’s claim against him has been discharged. Extra-judicially the lien holder can rely on his lien or he can raise it as a defence against the owner’s rei vindicatio. The categorisation of liens as either enrichment liens, or debtor creditor liens is at the most an indication of the different sources of the creditor’s right to which the lien is accessory. In Dutch law liens are classified as verhaalsrechten on the owner’s estate. These rights (verhaalsrechten) are further classified as specific opschortingsrechten. A lien is therefore a capacity granted to certain creditors by law to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing. Regarding the operation of liens against third parties (derdenwerking), Dutch law distinguishes between a third party with an older right to the thing and a third party with a later right to the thing. In South African case law derdewerking (real operation) of liens is often used to explain the fact that the lienholder may, in the absence of an agreement with the owner, retain the owner’s thing until his claim against the owner has been discharged. In South African law a lien is a defence to the owner’s rei vindicatio. Reliance on real operation (derdewerking) is often a means of explaining that a lien exists against an owner with whom the creditor had no agreement. Real operation, however, refers to the question against whom other than the owner the lien may be enforced once its existence has been established. A lien can be enforced against the creditors of the owner (debtor), the curator of the debtor’s insolvent estate, heirs, mortgagees and servitude holders. In Dutch law the BW grants preference to liens. Owing to the particular provisions of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 liens in South African law enjoy preference above other secured creditors of the insolvent owner (debtor). / Hierdie proefskrif handel oor die aard en werking van retensieregte in die Suid- Afrikaanse reg. Verrykingsretensieregte word algemeen as saaklike regte bestempel en skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte nie. Laasgenoemde word soms as persoonlike regte tipeer. Die Suid-Afrikaanse reg insake retensieregte is hoofsaaklik op die Romeins-Hollandse reg geskoei en stem in ‘n groot mate ooreen met die posisie in die Nederlandse reg voor die inwerkingtreding van die huidige Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In die Nederlandse reg bepaal die BW uitdruklik watter persone in watter omstandighede ‘n retensiereg het. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg kan ‘n skuldeiser ‘n retensiereg vestig teen ‘n eienaar wat prestasiepligtig is op grond van ‘n ooreenkoms met die skuldeiser of, in die afwesigheid van ‘n ooreenkoms, op grond van verryking. My navorsing toon dat ‘n retensiereg nie ‘n subjektiewe reg is nie, maar ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur regswerking totstandkom. Dit stel die skuldeiser in staat om die eienaar (skuldenaar) se saak te hou totdat die eienaar voldoen aan die vorderingsreg wat die skuldeiser teen hom het. Die retensiereghouer kan buitegeregtelik daarop steun, of dit as ‘n verweer teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio aanwend. Die kategorisering van retensieregte in skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte en verrykingsretensieregte is hoogstens aanduidend van die verskillende ontstaansbronne van die vorderingsreg waartoe die retensiereg aksessoor is. In die Nederlandse reg word retensieregte in die BW as verhaalsregte op die eienaar se boedel geklassifiseer. Hierdie verhaalsregte word uitdruklik as besondere opskortingsregte getipeer. ‘n Retensiereg is dus ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur die objektiewe reg aan sekere skuldeisers verleen word. Ten aansien van die derdewerking van retensieregte tref die Nederlandse reg ‘n onderskeid tussen ‘n derde met ‘n later reg op die saak en ‘n derde met ‘n ouer reg op die saak. In die Suid-Afrikaanse regspraak word “derdewerking” dikwels aangewend om te verklaar waarom die retensiereghouer ‘n eienaar se saak mag terughou totdat hy vergoed is vir uitgawes wat hy aan die eienaar se saak aangebring het, terwyl hy geen ooreenkoms met die eienaar gehad het nie. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg is ‘n retensiereg ‘n verweer wat teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio geopper kan word. Die beroep op “derdewerking” is dus dikwels die kapstok om te bepaal of ‘n retensiereg teen die eienaar geopper kan word, terwyl dit eintlik verwys na die afdwingbaarheid van ‘n bestaande retensiereg teen ander persone as die eienaar. ‘n Retensiereg kan teen skuldeisers van die skuldenaar, die kurator van die skuldenaar se insolvente boedel, erfgename, verbandhouers en serwituutgeregtigdes afgedwing word. In die Nederlandse reg verleen die BW voorkeur aan retensieregte. Vanweë die besondere bepalings in die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936 geniet retensieregte in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg ook voorkeur bo ander versekerde skuldeisers van die insolvente eienaar (skuldenaar). / Private Law / LL.D.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The lessor's tacit hypothec improves the chances of the lessor to recover rent in arrears. This real security right arises by operation of law and attaches to the lessee's movable property found on the leased premises when rent is due but not paid. The extension of the lessor‟s tacit hypothec to third parties' property is the remedy's most controversial feature. The extension is supposedly based on one of two theoretical justifications, namely implied consent and the doctrine of estoppel. According to the implied-consent theory, the extension is based on the premise that the third party consented (explicitly or by implication) that his property can serve as security for the payment of the lessee's arrear rent. The basis of the second theory, the doctrine of estoppel, operates as a limitation on the rei vindicatio of the third party. Over the years discourse has shown that there are uncertainties surrounding these justifications. Recent debate has also shown that if constitutionally challenged, the extension of the lessor's tacit hypothec could amount to arbitrary deprivation of third parties' property. The aim of this thesis is to establish whether and how the existing common law principles that provide for the extension of the lessor's tacit hypothec over property belonging to third parties are affected by section 25(1) of the Constitution. Consequently, the thesis describes, analyses and scrutinises the general principles regulating the lessor's tacit hypothec, and more specifically the extension of the lessor's tacit hypothec to third parties' property, in view of section 25(1) of the Constitution. Taking into considering the recent statutory protection of third parties' property, the thesis concludes that the extension of the lessor's tacit hypothec does not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of third parties' property because correct application of the common law principles that provide for the extension and the statutory protection that has been introduced to exclude a large number of cases from the reach of the extension adequately protect third parties' property interests. Therefore, the requirements of section 25(1) are satisfied. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die verhuurder se stilswyende hipoteek verbeter sy kanse om agterstallige huur van sy huurder in te vorder. Wanneer die huur opeisbaar word, maar die huurder versuim om tydig te betaal, kom hierdie saaklike sekerheidsreg deur regswerking tot stand en dit dek alle roerende sake wat op die verhuurde perseel gevind word. Die uitbreiding van die stilwyende hipoteek na eiendom wat aan derde partye behoort is die remedie se mees kontroversiële eienskap. Hierdie uitbreiding van die hipoteek se toepassingsveld berus na bewering op een van twee regverdigingsgronde, naamlik die derde se geïmpliseerde toestemming en die leerstuk van estoppel. Volgens die geïmpliseerde toestemming-teorie kan die hipoteek na derdes se bates uitgebrei word op die veronderstelling dat sodanige derde partye toegestem het (uitdruklik of by implikasie) dat hulle eiendom as sekuriteit vir betaling van die huurder se agterstallige huur mag dien. Die tweede teorie steun op die beperking wat die leerstuk van estoppel op die rei vindicatio van die derde party plaas. Oor die jare het debatte aangedui dat daar onsekerhede rondom hierdie regverdigingsgronde bestaan. Onlangse debatte het ook aangetoon dat, indien dit grondwetlik getoets word, die uitbreiding van die hipoteek moontlik mag neerkom op ‟n arbitrêre ontneming van die derdes se eiendom. Die doel van hierdie tesis is om vas te stel of en hoe die bestaande gemeenregtelike beginsels wat die stilswyende hipoteek na bates van derdes uitbrei deur artikel 25(1) van die Grondwet beïnvloed word. Die tesis bespreek, analiseer en toets gevolglik die algemene beginsels van die verhuurder se stilswyende hipoteek, en meer spesifiek die uitbreiding van die hipoteek na bates wat aan derdes behoort, in die lig van artikel 25(1) van die Grondwet. Met inagneming van die beskerming wat derde party se eiendom in terme van onlangse wetgewing geniet, bevind die tesis dat die uitgebreide toepassing van die stilswyende hipoteek nie op ʼn arbitrêre ontneming van derde partye se eiendom neerkom nie omdat korrekte toepassing van die gemeenregtelike beginsels wat vir die uitbreiding voorsiening maak, in kombinasie met die wetgewende uitsluiting van ‟n groot aantal sake wat aan derdes behoort, voldoende beskerming aan die belange van derdes verleen. Die vereistes van artikel 25(1) word dus bevredig.