Ao longo de seu texto, o Código Civil de 2002 não traz o vocábulo comissório ou quaisquer de suas possíveis flexões gramaticais. Na doutrina e jurisprudência pátrias, entretanto, ele é aplicado exaustivamente quanto à proibição prevista nos artigos 1.428 e 1.365 do mencionado diploma legal. Grosso modo, tem-se em tais dispositivos a impossibilidade de que, após verificado o inadimplemento da obrigação principal, possa o credor insatisfeito conservar para si, na condição de proprietário, a coisa entregue em garantia. Ainda que reproduzida em diversos códigos modernos, especialmente naqueles de tradição romano-germânica, essa vedação ao chamado pacto comissório é um tema pouquíssimo estudado. A necessidade de uma maior reflexão sobre seu conteúdo, no entanto, é cada vez mais evidente. Isso porque, como demonstram pesquisas recentes no âmbito da literatura comparística, há indícios de que a regra tem por base fundamentos que não mais se justificariam. A esse propósito, vale salientar, o estudo do direito romano é fundamental. Afinal, nele a lex commissoria foi criada e por séculos teve aplicação no âmbito dos direitos reais de garantia, até ter sido proibida pelo Imperador Constantino (C. Th. 3, 2, 1; C. 8, 34, 3), no século III. O presente trabalho, portanto, tem por objetivo central a reconstrução e análise do instituto antigo, para que então com mais segurança seja possível delimitar, em que medida, pôde a lex commissoria romana influenciar a proibição do pacto comissório nos atuais ordenamentos jurídicos, em especial, o brasileiro. Para tanto, deve-se notar, em um primeiro momento, que separar a lex commissoria objeto da mencionada decisão da mais consagrada lex comissória no âmbito da compra e venda, recepcionada no livro 18 do Digesto e ainda largamente aceita nos sistemas modernos, não é tarefa das mais fáceis. Tendo a proibição sido anterior à compilação do Corpus Iuris e, igualmente, tendo a própria fiducia cum creditore sido extinta por volta do século II, escassos são os testemunhos nas fontes que chegaram até os nossos dias. / Throughout its text, Brazilian Civil Code of 2002 does not have the word \"comissório\" or any of its possible grammatical inflections. In Brazilian doctrine and jurisprudence, however, it is applied thoroughly as the prohibition laid down in Articles 1,428 and 1,365 of that statute. Roughly speaking, we have in such provisions the impossibility that, upon inspection of the default of the principal obligation, unsatisfied creditors could keep for themselves the thing given as a real security (pledge), provided being the owner. Although reproduced in many modern codes, especially those of Roman-Germanic tradition, the prohibition of the so called pacto comissório is a topic rarely researched. The need for further reflection on its contents, however, is increasingly evident. This is because, as recent research into comparative literature shows, there is evidence that this rule is based on essentials that would no longer be justified. In that regard, it is worth mentioning, the study of Roman law is fundamental. After all, in it the lex commissoria was created and for centuries it had been applied under the provision of security until it was banned by Emperor Constantine (C. Th. 3, 2, 1; C. 8, 34, 3) in the 3rd century A.D. The present study, therefore, has as its central objective the reconstruction and the analysis of that ancient institute, so that more safely it will be possible to delimit to what extent could the Roman lex commissoria influence the pacto comissório in current legal systems, in particular the Brazilian one. Therefore, it should be noted at first that to separate the lex commissoria, object of the aforementioned ban, from the established lex commissoria under purchase and sale, as disposed in Book 18 of the Digesta and still widely accepted in modern systems, it is not an easy task. Since the prohibition was prior to the compiling of the Corpus Iuris and also having the fiducia cum creditore been extinct sometime around the 2nd Century, testimonies in sources that have come down to our day are scarce.

Ao longo de seu texto, o Código Civil de 2002 não traz o vocábulo comissório ou quaisquer de suas possíveis flexões gramaticais. Na doutrina e jurisprudência pátrias, entretanto, ele é aplicado exaustivamente quanto à proibição prevista nos artigos 1.428 e 1.365 do mencionado diploma legal. Grosso modo, tem-se em tais dispositivos a impossibilidade de que, após verificado o inadimplemento da obrigação principal, possa o credor insatisfeito conservar para si, na condição de proprietário, a coisa entregue em garantia. Ainda que reproduzida em diversos códigos modernos, especialmente naqueles de tradição romano-germânica, essa vedação ao chamado pacto comissório é um tema pouquíssimo estudado. A necessidade de uma maior reflexão sobre seu conteúdo, no entanto, é cada vez mais evidente. Isso porque, como demonstram pesquisas recentes no âmbito da literatura comparística, há indícios de que a regra tem por base fundamentos que não mais se justificariam. A esse propósito, vale salientar, o estudo do direito romano é fundamental. Afinal, nele a lex commissoria foi criada e por séculos teve aplicação no âmbito dos direitos reais de garantia, até ter sido proibida pelo Imperador Constantino (C. Th. 3, 2, 1; C. 8, 34, 3), no século III. O presente trabalho, portanto, tem por objetivo central a reconstrução e análise do instituto antigo, para que então com mais segurança seja possível delimitar, em que medida, pôde a lex commissoria romana influenciar a proibição do pacto comissório nos atuais ordenamentos jurídicos, em especial, o brasileiro. Para tanto, deve-se notar, em um primeiro momento, que separar a lex commissoria objeto da mencionada decisão da mais consagrada lex comissória no âmbito da compra e venda, recepcionada no livro 18 do Digesto e ainda largamente aceita nos sistemas modernos, não é tarefa das mais fáceis. Tendo a proibição sido anterior à compilação do Corpus Iuris e, igualmente, tendo a própria fiducia cum creditore sido extinta por volta do século II, escassos são os testemunhos nas fontes que chegaram até os nossos dias. / Throughout its text, Brazilian Civil Code of 2002 does not have the word \"comissório\" or any of its possible grammatical inflections. In Brazilian doctrine and jurisprudence, however, it is applied thoroughly as the prohibition laid down in Articles 1,428 and 1,365 of that statute. Roughly speaking, we have in such provisions the impossibility that, upon inspection of the default of the principal obligation, unsatisfied creditors could keep for themselves the thing given as a real security (pledge), provided being the owner. Although reproduced in many modern codes, especially those of Roman-Germanic tradition, the prohibition of the so called pacto comissório is a topic rarely researched. The need for further reflection on its contents, however, is increasingly evident. This is because, as recent research into comparative literature shows, there is evidence that this rule is based on essentials that would no longer be justified. In that regard, it is worth mentioning, the study of Roman law is fundamental. After all, in it the lex commissoria was created and for centuries it had been applied under the provision of security until it was banned by Emperor Constantine (C. Th. 3, 2, 1; C. 8, 34, 3) in the 3rd century A.D. The present study, therefore, has as its central objective the reconstruction and the analysis of that ancient institute, so that more safely it will be possible to delimit to what extent could the Roman lex commissoria influence the pacto comissório in current legal systems, in particular the Brazilian one. Therefore, it should be noted at first that to separate the lex commissoria, object of the aforementioned ban, from the established lex commissoria under purchase and sale, as disposed in Book 18 of the Digesta and still widely accepted in modern systems, it is not an easy task. Since the prohibition was prior to the compiling of the Corpus Iuris and also having the fiducia cum creditore been extinct sometime around the 2nd Century, testimonies in sources that have come down to our day are scarce.

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.

Text in Afrikaans / Die doel van saaklike sekerheidstelling is om 'n saak as eksekusievoorwerp tot die beskikking van die kredietgewer te stel. Vorderingsregte as sekerheidsobjekte voldoen hieraan en moet daarom as deel van die saakbegrip beskou word. Vorderingsregte word in die praktyk as sekerheidsobjekte aangewend of by wyse van sekerheidsessies of deur middel van die registrasie van 'n notariele verband daaroor. Alhoewel die regspraak by sekerheidsessies voorkeur gee aan 'n verpandingskonstruksie, is Scott van mening dat 'n algehele sekerheidsessie nog moontlik is. Die toepassing van die verpandingskonstruksie lewer aanvaarbare resultate en voldoen meestal aan die kontrakterende partye se behoeftes. Die vereiste van publisiteit by pandreg sal egter in sekere gevalle nie vir die partye aanvaarbaar wees nie en kan algehele sekerheidsessies hier 'n oplossing bied. By notariele verbande is die bestaande posisie ingevolge waarvan 'n onderskeid gemaak word tussen liggaamlike en onliggaamlike sake as sekerheidsobjekte, onuithoudbaar en is wetgewing in die verband nodig. The aim of real security is to have objects available to a creditor for execution. Personal rights may be used for this purpose and should therefore be included in the definition of property. In practise claims (personal rights) are used as security objects by way of a security cession or through the registration of a notarial bond over the claims. Although the courts give preference to personal rights in security by way of pledge, Scott is of the opinion that these decisions do not exclude out-and-out security cessions. The results that application of the law of pledge causes, are acceptable and will mostly fulfil the need of the parties. In certain situations the requirement of publicity will however be unacceptable in which instance out-and-out security cessions may be the solution. The current position where a distinction is made between corporeal and incorporeal property as security objects, is unacceptable and legislation is needed in this regard. / Private Law / LL.M.

Text in Afrikaans / Die doel van saaklike sekerheidstelling is om 'n saak as eksekusievoorwerp tot die beskikking van die kredietgewer te stel. Vorderingsregte as sekerheidsobjekte voldoen hieraan en moet daarom as deel van die saakbegrip beskou word. Vorderingsregte word in die praktyk as sekerheidsobjekte aangewend of by wyse van sekerheidsessies of deur middel van die registrasie van 'n notariele verband daaroor. Alhoewel die regspraak by sekerheidsessies voorkeur gee aan 'n verpandingskonstruksie, is Scott van mening dat 'n algehele sekerheidsessie nog moontlik is. Die toepassing van die verpandingskonstruksie lewer aanvaarbare resultate en voldoen meestal aan die kontrakterende partye se behoeftes. Die vereiste van publisiteit by pandreg sal egter in sekere gevalle nie vir die partye aanvaarbaar wees nie en kan algehele sekerheidsessies hier 'n oplossing bied. By notariele verbande is die bestaande posisie ingevolge waarvan 'n onderskeid gemaak word tussen liggaamlike en onliggaamlike sake as sekerheidsobjekte, onuithoudbaar en is wetgewing in die verband nodig. The aim of real security is to have objects available to a creditor for execution. Personal rights may be used for this purpose and should therefore be included in the definition of property. In practise claims (personal rights) are used as security objects by way of a security cession or through the registration of a notarial bond over the claims. Although the courts give preference to personal rights in security by way of pledge, Scott is of the opinion that these decisions do not exclude out-and-out security cessions. The results that application of the law of pledge causes, are acceptable and will mostly fulfil the need of the parties. In certain situations the requirement of publicity will however be unacceptable in which instance out-and-out security cessions may be the solution. The current position where a distinction is made between corporeal and incorporeal property as security objects, is unacceptable and legislation is needed in this regard. / Private Law / LL.M.

Money lenders frequently use sale and lease back agreements as an alternative to other more conventional forms of security. These agreements are popular because they are simple and inexpensive to put in place. Unfortunately, South African courts give legal effect to the true intention of contracting parties. Sale and lease back agreements are often held to be simulated contracts and as such they are enforced as disguised pledges. One of the few alternative security options available to money lenders, is a notarial bond registered in terms of the Security By Means of Movable Property Act 57 of 1993. This act has been criticised for creating an ineffective form of security that is costly and cumbersome to put in place. It is suggested that the current security options available to money lenders are supplemented with the creation of a more user friendly public register for the registration of security interests. / Private Law / LL.M.

Money lenders frequently use sale and lease back agreements as an alternative to other more conventional forms of security. These agreements are popular because they are simple and inexpensive to put in place. Unfortunately, South African courts give legal effect to the true intention of contracting parties. Sale and lease back agreements are often held to be simulated contracts and as such they are enforced as disguised pledges. One of the few alternative security options available to money lenders, is a notarial bond registered in terms of the Security By Means of Movable Property Act 57 of 1993. This act has been criticised for creating an ineffective form of security that is costly and cumbersome to put in place. It is suggested that the current security options available to money lenders are supplemented with the creation of a more user friendly public register for the registration of security interests. / Private Law / LL.M.

Le droit des sûretés réelles a fait l’objet de profondes mutations à la suite de plusieurs réformes successives qui viennent de l’affecter. Si la matière s’est indubitablement modernisée, il reste qu’elle souffre d’un manque de cohérence globale qui tient tout à la fois à la trop grande offre de sûretés et à l’insuffisance de règles fédératrices venant régir l’ensemble. La question se pose alors de savoir s’il est possible et envisageable de dégager un socle de règles communes plus élaboré, voire même un droit commun, et selon quelles modalités. Il en ressort l’interrogation sur l’efficacité du droit ohada des sûretés réelles au regard de l’inadéquation entre les objectifs du législateur africain et les moyens qu’il a mis en oeuvre pour les atteindre. Au regard des expériences internationales, la réponse à ces questionnements réside à notre sens dans une réforme plus ambitieuse du droit ohada des sûretés réelles qui se traduirait par l’adoption d’une approche fonctionnelle telle qu’il nous a été donné de voir dans des pays appartenant à la même tradition juridique que la nôtre. Plus concrètement, il s’agira de redonner, à travers cette conception fonctionnelle des sûretés, de la cohérence, de la simplicité et de l’accessibilité, en somme de l’efficacité au droit ohada des sûretés réelles de manière à le rapprocher des populations et des réalités socio-économiques des États de l’ohada tout en n’occultant pas les enjeux économiques internationaux. / The real security interests law/secured transactions has gone through crucial changes following a series of several reforms which has affected it. If the subject matter has undoubtedly been modernized, it is obvious that the real security interests law/secured transactions is still lacking of general consistency which is linked simultaneously to the large numbers of proposal on security interests and to the insufficiency of federative rules which come to govern the whole. Actually, the problem poses the question to know if it is possible and conceivable to put forward a base of more sophisticated general rules, or even a general law, and according to what methods? The interrogation underlines the efficacy of ohada real securities law in regard to the inadequacy between the objectives of the African legislator and the means used by him to achieve them. In other words, it is admitted to question on the way of a reinforcement of the actual real securities law in sight of a greatest efficacy. In regard to the international experiences, the answer of these questioning is found, in our opinion, in a reform more ambitious of the ohada real securities law which is going to lead to the adoption of a functional approach as it was observed in States with the same juridical culture of ours. In concrete terms, it is important to give back, through this functional conception of securities interest, coherence, and simplicity, in sum, efficacy to ohada real securities law likewise to bring it closer to the population and to the socio-economic realities of ohada member States while revealing the international economic stakes.

A real security right improves a creditor’s chances of recovering a debt owed to him by the debtor. In the case of an ordinary pledge, the pledgor delivers physical control of his movable property to his creditor to serve as security for the repayment of the principal debt. The increasing value and use of movable property as an object of security coupled with technological advancement have resulted in many countries calling for legal reform of real security rights over movable property. In South Africa this led to the introduction of the Security by Means of Movable Property Act 57 of 1993 which makes provision for a pledge without possession. The Act regulates only special notarial bonds and does not apply to general notarial bonds. The real security right vests in the bondholder upon registration of the bond, provided that the movable property encumbered is described in a notarial bond in a way that makes it readily recognisable. The Act has substituted delivery with registration in the Deeds Registry. Registration of the notarial bond in the Deeds Registry is questioned as to whether it complies with the publicity principle. This is because movable property can be shifted from one place to another without any knowledge on the part of the creditor due to the inaccessible and costly registration system. The third party then receives the property subject to the real security right of the creditor. The substitution of delivery with registration is the controversial feature in this study. Linked to the legal problems regarding compliance with the publicity principle, is the description and identification requirement as provided for under the Act, the exclusion of general notarial bonds from the application of the Act, and the question of whether it is appropriate to regard special notarial bonds as pledges without possession. This study questions whether the current land registry system should be used for the registration of notarial bonds and suggests that a new system designed specifically for the registration of real security rights over movables be considered. I compare the position in the Belgian legal system as regards developments in real security rights over movables to identify possible solutions and recommendations for the South African approach. / Private Law / LL. M.