PVL3701 Assignment 1
Semester 2 Memo
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Due August 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, To determine whether Evergreen Printing (Mr Mboweni’s company) can vindicate (legally
reclaim) the printing machine and compressor from USS Graphics (Mr Viljoen’s company), we
must evaluate the legal principles of ownership, attachment (accession), and the rei vindicatio
in property law, using the Study Guide and case law—including the USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd v
Viljoen case—as reference.
✅ 1. Can Evergreen Printing Vindicate the Property?
Yes, Evergreen Printing can likely vindicate the printing machine and compressor—provided
it can meet the requirements of the rei vindicatio and overcome any argument that the
equipment became part of the immovable property through accession.
🔎 2. What is the Rei Vindicatio?
The rei vindicatio is a legal remedy available to the owner of a movable or immovable thing to
reclaim it from someone who is in unlawful possession of it. To succeed with this remedy,
Evergreen Printing must prove:
1. That it is the owner of the property (the printing machine and compressor).
2. That the property is still identifiable.
3. That the defendant (Mr Viljoen/USS Graphics) is in possession of the item without legal
justification (e.g. without a valid lease or contract).
🧷 3. Did the Machine and Compressor Become Part of the Immovable Property?
This is where the legal doctrine of accession (specificatio and inaedificatio) becomes relevant.
According to the USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd v Viljoen and Another 2011 (5) SA 258 (KZD) case
(which is directly relevant to this scenario), the court held:
Heavy printing equipment that was bolted to the floor and walls of a building did not
become part of the immovable property by accession.
The court applied a fact-based test, looking at whether:
o The attachment was permanent or temporary.
o The equipment could be removed without substantial damage.
o The intention was to secure the equipment or permanently improve the
property.
In that case, the court concluded the attachment was merely for operational stability, not with
the intention of making the items permanent fixtures.
Semester 2 Memo
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Due August 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, To determine whether Evergreen Printing (Mr Mboweni’s company) can vindicate (legally
reclaim) the printing machine and compressor from USS Graphics (Mr Viljoen’s company), we
must evaluate the legal principles of ownership, attachment (accession), and the rei vindicatio
in property law, using the Study Guide and case law—including the USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd v
Viljoen case—as reference.
✅ 1. Can Evergreen Printing Vindicate the Property?
Yes, Evergreen Printing can likely vindicate the printing machine and compressor—provided
it can meet the requirements of the rei vindicatio and overcome any argument that the
equipment became part of the immovable property through accession.
🔎 2. What is the Rei Vindicatio?
The rei vindicatio is a legal remedy available to the owner of a movable or immovable thing to
reclaim it from someone who is in unlawful possession of it. To succeed with this remedy,
Evergreen Printing must prove:
1. That it is the owner of the property (the printing machine and compressor).
2. That the property is still identifiable.
3. That the defendant (Mr Viljoen/USS Graphics) is in possession of the item without legal
justification (e.g. without a valid lease or contract).
🧷 3. Did the Machine and Compressor Become Part of the Immovable Property?
This is where the legal doctrine of accession (specificatio and inaedificatio) becomes relevant.
According to the USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd v Viljoen and Another 2011 (5) SA 258 (KZD) case
(which is directly relevant to this scenario), the court held:
Heavy printing equipment that was bolted to the floor and walls of a building did not
become part of the immovable property by accession.
The court applied a fact-based test, looking at whether:
o The attachment was permanent or temporary.
o The equipment could be removed without substantial damage.
o The intention was to secure the equipment or permanently improve the
property.
In that case, the court concluded the attachment was merely for operational stability, not with
the intention of making the items permanent fixtures.
