Jo-Ann and Peter occupy a farm close to Hlohlolwane in the Free State Province. The
farm used to belong to them but was expropriated by the state in 2022. Jo-Ann and
Peter struggle financially and do not have the means to buy another farm. Although their
attorney, Dima advised them to move, they decided to remain on the farm. They argue
that the farm still belongs to them since the transfer of ownership to the state has not
taken place yet.
Against this background answer the following questions:
Question 1
Why is expropriation classified as a form of original acquisition of ownership? Fully
substantiate your answer with reference to the specific page of your Study Guide that
you consulted to answer this question. Do not insert footnotes – simply refer to the
relevant page(s) that you consulted in brackets after your answer. Your answer should
not exceed 6 lines.
1. No transfer of ownership from the previous owner
2. There is no consent from the owner in other words there is no co-operation from the
predecessor in title
Question 2
Fully advise Jo-Ann and Peter about their legal position regarding the farm. In your
answer specifically focus on whether they are still owners of the farm and the validity of
their argument regarding registration. Substantiate your answer with reference to the
specific page number in the Study Guide that you consulted to answer this question. Do
not insert footnotes – simply refer to the relevant page(s) that you consulted in brackets
after your answer. Your answer should not exceed 8 lines.
1. Expropriation terminates their ownership through the operation of law
2. Registration is not required in cases of expropriation
3. Ownership of the farm will vest on the date specified in the notice of expropriation
Question 3
,Deprivation and expropriation are both dealt with in terms of the property clause, Section
25 of the Constitution, 1996. These concepts differ.
In view of the FNB decision explain how a court could approach infringements of the
property clause. Substantiate your answer with reference to the most relevant
paragraph(s) of the FNB decision that you consulted to answer this question. Do not
insert footnotes – simply refer to the relevant paragraph(s) that you consulted in brackets
after your answer. Your answer should not exceed 6 lines.
,In June 2023, John bought a house in Sandton. At the time, he decided to install a solar
system due to the unreliable electricity provision in South Africa. He bought 20 solar
panels, 4 batteries and an inverter on credit from the “Sun Company”. The Sun
Company installed the system in July 2023. The agreement between John and the Sun
Company provided that John would only become the owner of the solar panels, the
batteries and the inverter after all the instalments were paid. It further provided that the
Sun Company could remove the entire system, should John, fall into arrears with
payment of the instalments.
John decided to move to Cape Town and, before all the instalments of the solar system
were paid, he sold the house to Lindiwe. After registration of the property in Lindiwe’s
name and after Lindiwe moved in, the technicians of the Sun Company arrived at
Lindiwe’s house to remove the solar system. Lindiwe refused to allow them access to his
house, but they explained to her that John stopped paying the instalments of the solar
system and that they were therefore allowed to remove the system. Lindiwe asks her
son, Nkosinathi, who is a third-year LLB student at Unisa, for advice. Nkosinathi
explained that the solar system belongs to Lindiwe because it became part of the land
by means of inaedificatio (accession by building). Nkosinathi further explained that the
South African courts apply different criteria to determine whether a movable thing
became permanently attached to land namely, the nature and purpose of the attached
thing; the manner and degree of attachment; and the intention of the person annexing
the movable or the intention of the owner of the movable. He added that these criteria
have been applied in different ways by the South African courts.
Against this background answer the following questions:
Question 1
Why is inaedificatio classified as a form of original acquisition of ownership? Fully
substantiate your answer with reference to the specific page(s) of your Study Guide that
you consulted to answer this question. Do not insert footnotes – simply refer to the
relevant page(s) that you consulted in brackets after your answer. Your answer should
not exceed 6 lines.
1. No transfer of ownership takes place – owner of the moveable thing loses his
ownership because the moveable thing loses its independence (form part of the land)
2. Inaedificatio (building) does not involve co-operation of the owner of the moveable
thing attached to the immoveable thing.
Question 2
, Fully advise Lindiwe about the correctness of Nkosinathi’s advice. In your answer do not
repeat the criteria, rather focus on the interpretation of the third criterion (the subjective
intention criterion) by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Konstanz Properties (Pty) Ltd v
Wm Spilhaus en Kie (Wp) Bpk (1996 (3) SA 283 (A)). Take note that Konstanz
Properties (Pty) Ltd is one of the cases that you only need to study to the extent that it is
discussed in the Study Guide. Therefore, you must refer to the Konstanz Property (Pty)
Ltd case as discussed in the Study Guide. 12
In your answer, evaluate the correctness of the approach of the Supreme Court of
Appeal in Konstanz Properties (Pty) Ltd considering that inaedificatio is classified as an
original method of acquisition of ownership. Substantiate your answer with reference to
the specific page number(s) in the Study Guide that you consulted to answer this
question. Do not insert footnotes – simply refer to the relevant page(s) that you
consulted in brackets after your answer. Your answer
1. According to the third criteria – it was held in the Konstanz case the intention of the
owner will be the decisive factor – likewise, Sun Company’s intention will be the
decisive factor in determining whether the solar, inverter and batteries should be
attached to the property (house)
In this case – Sun company will be able to remove the moveables from the principle
thing because they were not paid fully
2. Page 77 and 78
farm used to belong to them but was expropriated by the state in 2022. Jo-Ann and
Peter struggle financially and do not have the means to buy another farm. Although their
attorney, Dima advised them to move, they decided to remain on the farm. They argue
that the farm still belongs to them since the transfer of ownership to the state has not
taken place yet.
Against this background answer the following questions:
Question 1
Why is expropriation classified as a form of original acquisition of ownership? Fully
substantiate your answer with reference to the specific page of your Study Guide that
you consulted to answer this question. Do not insert footnotes – simply refer to the
relevant page(s) that you consulted in brackets after your answer. Your answer should
not exceed 6 lines.
1. No transfer of ownership from the previous owner
2. There is no consent from the owner in other words there is no co-operation from the
predecessor in title
Question 2
Fully advise Jo-Ann and Peter about their legal position regarding the farm. In your
answer specifically focus on whether they are still owners of the farm and the validity of
their argument regarding registration. Substantiate your answer with reference to the
specific page number in the Study Guide that you consulted to answer this question. Do
not insert footnotes – simply refer to the relevant page(s) that you consulted in brackets
after your answer. Your answer should not exceed 8 lines.
1. Expropriation terminates their ownership through the operation of law
2. Registration is not required in cases of expropriation
3. Ownership of the farm will vest on the date specified in the notice of expropriation
Question 3
,Deprivation and expropriation are both dealt with in terms of the property clause, Section
25 of the Constitution, 1996. These concepts differ.
In view of the FNB decision explain how a court could approach infringements of the
property clause. Substantiate your answer with reference to the most relevant
paragraph(s) of the FNB decision that you consulted to answer this question. Do not
insert footnotes – simply refer to the relevant paragraph(s) that you consulted in brackets
after your answer. Your answer should not exceed 6 lines.
,In June 2023, John bought a house in Sandton. At the time, he decided to install a solar
system due to the unreliable electricity provision in South Africa. He bought 20 solar
panels, 4 batteries and an inverter on credit from the “Sun Company”. The Sun
Company installed the system in July 2023. The agreement between John and the Sun
Company provided that John would only become the owner of the solar panels, the
batteries and the inverter after all the instalments were paid. It further provided that the
Sun Company could remove the entire system, should John, fall into arrears with
payment of the instalments.
John decided to move to Cape Town and, before all the instalments of the solar system
were paid, he sold the house to Lindiwe. After registration of the property in Lindiwe’s
name and after Lindiwe moved in, the technicians of the Sun Company arrived at
Lindiwe’s house to remove the solar system. Lindiwe refused to allow them access to his
house, but they explained to her that John stopped paying the instalments of the solar
system and that they were therefore allowed to remove the system. Lindiwe asks her
son, Nkosinathi, who is a third-year LLB student at Unisa, for advice. Nkosinathi
explained that the solar system belongs to Lindiwe because it became part of the land
by means of inaedificatio (accession by building). Nkosinathi further explained that the
South African courts apply different criteria to determine whether a movable thing
became permanently attached to land namely, the nature and purpose of the attached
thing; the manner and degree of attachment; and the intention of the person annexing
the movable or the intention of the owner of the movable. He added that these criteria
have been applied in different ways by the South African courts.
Against this background answer the following questions:
Question 1
Why is inaedificatio classified as a form of original acquisition of ownership? Fully
substantiate your answer with reference to the specific page(s) of your Study Guide that
you consulted to answer this question. Do not insert footnotes – simply refer to the
relevant page(s) that you consulted in brackets after your answer. Your answer should
not exceed 6 lines.
1. No transfer of ownership takes place – owner of the moveable thing loses his
ownership because the moveable thing loses its independence (form part of the land)
2. Inaedificatio (building) does not involve co-operation of the owner of the moveable
thing attached to the immoveable thing.
Question 2
, Fully advise Lindiwe about the correctness of Nkosinathi’s advice. In your answer do not
repeat the criteria, rather focus on the interpretation of the third criterion (the subjective
intention criterion) by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Konstanz Properties (Pty) Ltd v
Wm Spilhaus en Kie (Wp) Bpk (1996 (3) SA 283 (A)). Take note that Konstanz
Properties (Pty) Ltd is one of the cases that you only need to study to the extent that it is
discussed in the Study Guide. Therefore, you must refer to the Konstanz Property (Pty)
Ltd case as discussed in the Study Guide. 12
In your answer, evaluate the correctness of the approach of the Supreme Court of
Appeal in Konstanz Properties (Pty) Ltd considering that inaedificatio is classified as an
original method of acquisition of ownership. Substantiate your answer with reference to
the specific page number(s) in the Study Guide that you consulted to answer this
question. Do not insert footnotes – simply refer to the relevant page(s) that you
consulted in brackets after your answer. Your answer
1. According to the third criteria – it was held in the Konstanz case the intention of the
owner will be the decisive factor – likewise, Sun Company’s intention will be the
decisive factor in determining whether the solar, inverter and batteries should be
attached to the property (house)
In this case – Sun company will be able to remove the moveables from the principle
thing because they were not paid fully
2. Page 77 and 78
