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.

Text in Afrikaans, abstract in Afrikaans and English / In hierdie verhandeling ontleed ek die oproeping van ʼn verband op ʼn onroerende saak in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg. Indien ʼn verbandskuldenaar wanpresteer, kan die verbandskuldeiser sy beperkte saaklike reg afdwing deur die verband op te roep ten einde die uitstaande skuld te delg. Om dit te bereik, word die sekerheidsobjek op ʼn eksekusieverkoping te gelde gemaak, nadat die regte prosedure gevolg is. Die oproepingsproses is in die laaste dekade ingrypend verander, grotendeels as gevolg van artikel 26 van die Grondwet, 1996, en artikels 129 en 130 van die National Credit Act 34 van 2005. Die volgende stadiums in die oproepingsproses word onderskei: die voorverhoorprosedure; jurisdiksiebepaling; die hofprosedure; beslaglegging en die eksekusieverkoping. Wetgewing en regspraak het onlangs ingrypende veranderings ten aansien van die voorverhoorprosedure en die hofprosedure teweeggebring. Alhoewel die oproepingsproses tans bevredigend deur wetgewing en in die regspraak gereël word, is daar nog verontrustende aspekte van eksekusieverkopings wat die wetgewer se aandag verdien. / In this dissertation I analyse the calling up of a mortgage bond over immovable property under South-African law. If a mortgagor defaults, the mortgagee can enforce his limited real right by calling up the mortgage bond to satisfy the outstanding debt. To accomplish this, the secured property will be sold at an execution sale, after the correct procedure has been followed. Over the past decade, foreclosure proceedings have undergone significant changes, largely owing to section 26 of the Constitution, 1996, and sections 129 and 130 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005. The following stages in the foreclosure process are identified: pre-trial debt enforcement procedure; determination of jurisdiction; court procedure; attachment and execution sale. Both the pre-trial debt enforcement procedure and the court procedure have recently been substantially amended by legislation and case law. Although legislation and case law currently regulate the foreclosure process satisfactorily, some disturbing aspects of execution sales remain and these deserve the legislator’s attention. / Private Law / LL. M.