, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Evergreen Printing, a company owned by Mr Mboweni, is the owner of a lithographic printing
machine and a compressor that weighs 150 tons. USS Graphics, a company owned by Mr Viljoen,
entered into a two-year agreement with Evergreen Printing to lease the printing machine and
compressor at his home. Mr Mboweni has a long-standing relationship with Mr Viljoen as both are
involved in the printing industry. USS Graphics’ business is operating in Mr Viljoen’s house’s garage
(an immovable thing) with consent from the local authority. To operate optimally, the printing
machine and compressor were attached to the floor and walls. After two years, the lease agreement
was not renewed. Because Mr Viljoen’s company was extremely profitable, USS Graphics, decided to
continue using the printing machine and compressor even after the expiry of the agreement. Mr
Mboweni was not happy about this situation. His company (Evergreen Printing) was losing revenue
because USS Graphics was using the printing machine and the compressor without paying rent.
Evergreen printing therefore wanted to reclaim them. However, Mr Viljoen refuses to return them and
argues that they belong to his company.
Question 1
1. Would Mr Mboweni’s Evergreen Printing Company be able to vindicate the printing
machine and compressor from Mr Viljoen’s garage, and what must it prove to succeed in court?
In your answer, refer to the Study Guide and the USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd case.
To determine whether Mr. Mboweni's Evergreen Printing Company can vindicate the printing
machine and compressor from Mr. Viljoen’s garage, it is essential to examine the principles of
ownership and accession, considering the facts of the case and relevant legal precedents.
Evergreen Printing’s ability to reclaim the items would rest on the rei vindicatio, a legal action that
allows an owner to reclaim possession of their property from someone who is unlawfully holding it.
To succeed in this action, Evergreen Printing must establish three key elements: ownership of the
printing machine and compressor, the continued existence and identifiability of the items, and that
Mr. Viljoen or USS Graphics is currently in possession of them1.
The core issue here is ownership. Mr. Viljoen’s refusal to return the items and his claim that they
belong to USS Graphics challenges Evergreen Printing’s assertion of ownership. This raises the
question of whether the printing machine and compressor have become part of the property, through
the legal concept of accession.
Accession occurs when a movable item becomes permanently attached to an immovable item, such
that the two become a single entity, with ownership passing to the owner of the immovable item. In
this case, the printing machine and compressor were attached to the walls and floors of Mr. Viljoen’s
garage, an immovable object. The determination of whether accession has occurred depends on
several factors: the nature and purpose of the attachment, the manner and degree of attachment, and
the intention behind the attachment2.
1: (PVL3701, 2016: p119)
2: (PVL3701, 2016: p120)
Evergreen Printing, a company owned by Mr Mboweni, is the owner of a lithographic printing
machine and a compressor that weighs 150 tons. USS Graphics, a company owned by Mr Viljoen,
entered into a two-year agreement with Evergreen Printing to lease the printing machine and
compressor at his home. Mr Mboweni has a long-standing relationship with Mr Viljoen as both are
involved in the printing industry. USS Graphics’ business is operating in Mr Viljoen’s house’s garage
(an immovable thing) with consent from the local authority. To operate optimally, the printing
machine and compressor were attached to the floor and walls. After two years, the lease agreement
was not renewed. Because Mr Viljoen’s company was extremely profitable, USS Graphics, decided to
continue using the printing machine and compressor even after the expiry of the agreement. Mr
Mboweni was not happy about this situation. His company (Evergreen Printing) was losing revenue
because USS Graphics was using the printing machine and the compressor without paying rent.
Evergreen printing therefore wanted to reclaim them. However, Mr Viljoen refuses to return them and
argues that they belong to his company.
Question 1
1. Would Mr Mboweni’s Evergreen Printing Company be able to vindicate the printing
machine and compressor from Mr Viljoen’s garage, and what must it prove to succeed in court?
In your answer, refer to the Study Guide and the USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd case.
To determine whether Mr. Mboweni's Evergreen Printing Company can vindicate the printing
machine and compressor from Mr. Viljoen’s garage, it is essential to examine the principles of
ownership and accession, considering the facts of the case and relevant legal precedents.
Evergreen Printing’s ability to reclaim the items would rest on the rei vindicatio, a legal action that
allows an owner to reclaim possession of their property from someone who is unlawfully holding it.
To succeed in this action, Evergreen Printing must establish three key elements: ownership of the
printing machine and compressor, the continued existence and identifiability of the items, and that
Mr. Viljoen or USS Graphics is currently in possession of them1.
The core issue here is ownership. Mr. Viljoen’s refusal to return the items and his claim that they
belong to USS Graphics challenges Evergreen Printing’s assertion of ownership. This raises the
question of whether the printing machine and compressor have become part of the property, through
the legal concept of accession.
Accession occurs when a movable item becomes permanently attached to an immovable item, such
that the two become a single entity, with ownership passing to the owner of the immovable item. In
this case, the printing machine and compressor were attached to the walls and floors of Mr. Viljoen’s
garage, an immovable object. The determination of whether accession has occurred depends on
several factors: the nature and purpose of the attachment, the manner and degree of attachment, and
the intention behind the attachment2.
1: (PVL3701, 2016: p119)
2: (PVL3701, 2016: p120)
